Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

TRADE

Return Ordered
of statistics relating to overseas Trade of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1979.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Terrorist Incidents

Mr. McCusker: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of terrorist incidents recorded each month during 1978 at Bess-brook, Forkhill, Crossmaglen and New-tonhamilton Royal Ulster Constabulary stations.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Roy Mason): A total of 46 incidents has been recorded. I shall, with permission, publish the details in the Official Report.

Mr. McCusker: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the violence in South Armagh presents a very serious situation, and that the statistics he has given us today include the deaths of 10 innocent people, soldiers, UDR men, policemen and civilians? Will he have another look at the action which his right hon Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) took in 1976 to combat the growth of terrorism in South Armagh and perhaps reintroduce those measures?

Mr. Mason: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the operations of the SAS. As he well knows, the SAS is now operating Province-wide, and I can assure him that it is not neglecting his constituency. Though there have been 46 incidents—every one of which is one too many—in his area this year, that

represents a big improvement on the whole of 1977.

Following are the details:

Terrorist incidents recorded at RUC stations Bessbrook, Newtownhamilton, Crossmaglen and Forkhill, Co. Armagh: 1st January to 30th November 1978.


January
10


February
5


March
5


April
3


May
2


June
5


July
5


August
5


September
3


October
2


November
1


Total
46

These figures cover murders, shootings, explosions, hijackings and mortar attacks.

Mr. Wm. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many incidents of a terrorist nature occurred in Northern Ireland during the month of November 1978.

Mr. Mason: There was a total of 260 terrorist incidents in November, compared with 245 in the same month last year. These figures cover shootings, bombings, incendiary attacks, hijackings and armed robberies.

Mr. Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that this increase in the month of November indicates that the IRA is trying to raise the level of violence? Is he aware that it is vital that the IRA does not succeed in its objective of provoking a reaction from other sections of the community? Will he give an assurance that the security forces will not be driven back to fencing in the law-abiding town centres and will he say what further measures were introduced in November to contain the threat and reassure the populace?

Mr. Mason: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the local commanders in the towns of Northern Ireland work with the local security committees. Local politicians, members of the local populace, business men and traders are on those local security committees, and they themselves in spite of the bombing attacks by the Provisional IRA in recent weeks, have taken the decision not to erect the barriers and not to allow the PIRA to defeat them.

Mr. Farr: We recognise that the Secretary of State had to postpone yesterday's visit to London by the Irish Foreign Minister, but will he take urgent steps to resuscitate that arrangement, and will he call the attention of the Irish Government to the fact that supplies, money and explosives are drifting up to the North from the South? Moreover, will he ask the Minister to correct the wrong impression which was given recently in the Dail, where statements were made to the effect that there would be dead prisoners in the Maze before Christmas?

Mr. Mason: Yes, Sir. I am not aware that there will be dead prisoners in the Maze before Christmas. The situation there is well in hand. The prison officers are doing a remarkably good job, and they are cleaning and disinfecting all those cells every three weeks. They are not allowing that situation to get out of hand.
On the other matter, yes, of course, I shall see the Foreign Minister of the Republic as soon as possible. I am sorry that the visit was postponed, first, because of a change of parliamentary business, and second, because he would have been dashing back from the EMS conference. But I must tell the hon. Gentleman, on the security plane, that we discuss the situation every time we meet, and there is increasing co-operation between the North and the South. In fact, the Garda Commissioner came to Belfast in September this year to discuss the improvements with the Chief Constable.

Home Ownership

Mr. Townsend: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what new plans are being put forward to encourage home ownership in Northern Ireland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): A number of measures have already been taken to encourage home ownership in Northern Ireland. Other measures at present under active consideration include the sale of Housing Executive dwellings to sitting tenants in areas where housing need has been met, and the need for official action to secure the provision of sites for private house building. Moreover, when a current study of the factors governing the level of house prices in

Northern Ireland is complete, I intend considering what further measures, if any, might be taken.

Mr. Townsend: But is the Minister aware that the shortage of home loans in the Province has almost reached crisis proportions? Further, does he appreciate that, by restricting lending to what are virtually substandard dwellings, the Housing Executive has placed a large part of the housing market out of the reach of the buyer?

Mr. Carter: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman clearly does not know enough about private home ownership in Northern Ireland. The truth is that we probably have the best arrangement with the building societies of any region in the United Kingdom, and the Executive certainly places no undue limit currently on the question of loans to those who wish to buy their own property.

Mr. Bradford: I appreciate the contribution which the Housing Executive's home loans scheme makes to the possibility of house purchase in the Province, but will the Minister accept that the home loans department of the Executive takes an inordinately long time to process applications, thereby occasioning payments on bridging loans by the applicants?

Mr. Carter: I am not aware of that, but if the hon. Gentleman has examples that he can forward to me I shall take the matter up. The Housing Executive is bearing a rather unfair share of the burden of providing loans to people who wish to buy their homes in Northern Ireland. Undoubtedly, its organisation is overstrained, but by and large I think that it copes.

Mr. Watkinson: Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on the initiative which his Department has shown in bringing forward the home purchase scheme? Does not part of the problem of housing in Northern Ireland relate to the outdated and outmoded practices in the private rented sector, and can my hon. Friend indicate what is the prospective house building outturn for the coming year?

Mr. Carter: In both private and public sectors we shall not achieve quite what we wanted to achieve this year, for a variety of reasons. However, in the


private sector we have probably the most imaginative and wide-ranging programme to stimulate private sector acquisition of any region of the United Kingdom. Some hon. Members—the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) in particular—ought to be made aware of that, and I shall write to the hon. Member giving full details of the measures we are taking in Northern Ireland.

Areas of Need (Belfast)

Mr. Woodall: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether there is any further progress to report on the Belfast areas of need programme.

Mr. Carter: There has been significant progress. The Government recently announced a £1 million community development project for a 10-acre site in the Shankill area of West Belfast. On the industrial front, the first two neighbourhood business units are expected to be operational early in the new year. These units are specially designed to accommodate small businesses in areas affected by redevelopment.
The Belfast city council, the Belfast education and library board, the Eastern health and social services board and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive are making good progress with special Belfast areas of need programmes, which include provision of sports, recreation, community health and social service facilities, an educational programme, and special cleanup efforts.
Progress continues to be made on the schedule of projects to be financed from the initial £2 million allocation of United Kingdom inner city funds. To date, about 16 projects have been completed, and the remaining schemes will be completed in 1979.

Mr. Woodall: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply but, although I acknowledge that progress has been made, I should be glad to know whether the views of the ordinary man in the street have been sought in deciding the priorities. Further, have all the schemes come forward from public enterprise or has private enterprise come forward with any proposals?

Mr. Carter: On the last point, sadly, the vast majority—if not all—of the money which has been disbursed on these

projects has been public money. We should like to see private money coming in and playing a part in the whole enterprise of revitalising the inner part of Belfast.
On the first point, every conceivable effort is made to ensure that the local community and all the community groups which proliferate in Belfast are made aware of what we intend and what we should like to do. Similarly, we listen to everything which they would like us to do.. Therefore, from the point of view of the man in the street, I think that we make every effort as a Government to carry everyone with us.

Local Government Powers

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he intends to take a further political initiative regarding the powers of local government in the Province.

Mr. Mason: I have no plans substantially to increase the powers of the existing district councils; nor do I think that it would be right to establish in Northern Ireland a system of local government similar to that in England and Wales or Scotland. But I want to see the powers that were once exercised by county and county borough councils once more in the hands of elected representatives in a system of devolved government acceptable to both parts of the community. That is what my talks with the political parties will be about.

Mr. Latham: Is not the present situation very unsatisfactory except as a temporary measure, and should not the right hon. Gentleman, now that he is taking correct action over parliamentary representation, look again at this matter since there really ought not to be differences within the United Kingdom in this matter?

Mr. Mason: I hope that the major political parties in Northern Ireland will hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. My job is to try to get the four major political parties in particular to start thinking seriously about methods of devolution in Northern Ireland. In the past few weeks, I have met representatives of six political parties, including the four major political parties, and they are now prepared to think seriously about methods


of devolved government. I hope that we can make some progress.

Mr. Madden: Does my right hon. Friend believe that extensions of local government powers are compatible with the continuation of direct rule, which, if public opinion polls are to be believed, enjoys the popular support of both the majority and minority populations?

Mr. Mason: The latest survey indicates that the majority of the majority and minority population are content with direct rule, although, of course, most of them would like to see Ulstermen governing Ulster. As a matter of fact that would be the best solution. I am working towards it. But I hope that the political parties will co-operate.

Mr. Neave: Is not the real point that regional services should be restored to Northern Ireland people as soon as possible, and, since little progress is being made at present in the Secretary of State's talks, will he now consider ways of improving direct rule in the short term other than those which he has devised so far? Has the right hon. Gentleman come to a decision on the suggestion which I made in the House on 9th November, that he should invite Sir Patrick Macrory to devise a scheme for a regional council?

Mr. Mason: I do not want to disappoint the hon. Gentleman again with regard to his suggestion on the Macrory intervention, but I think that it is premature. I say that on the basis that, as I said a moment ago, I have now met six of the political parties in Northern Ireland, including the four major political parties—the Official Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, the Alliance Party and the Social Democratic and Labour Party. All four of them have now indicated that they are prepared to return and talk about forms and methods of devolution in the Province. I should like to go through that round of talks before I take on board the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. Neave: May I ask the Secretary of State a further question? If that second round of talks is not successful, will he then consider inviting Sir Patrick to devise a scheme?

Mr. Mason: I would not give an assurance at this stage, but I would not close my mind to it.

Mr. Fitt: Is it true that my right hon. Friend has recently had discussions with Official Unionist Party Members in the House on the question of a return of local government power to local authorities in Northern Ireland? Is he aware of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) at Warren-point last weekend in which he indicated to his audience, in his usual nudge-nudge, wink-wink fashion, that he had had discussions and that it would be a very short time before local authority powers were returned to local authorities in Northern Ireland? Will my right hon. Friend say whether that is true?

Mr. Mason: I am sorry, but I am not responsible for press speculation, and neither am I responsible—God forbid—for the utterances of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—

Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman would be very lucky if he were.

Mr. Mason: —on every subject on which he pontificates. But I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman himself will inform my hon. Friend whether he has discussed with me a stepping stone towards a return of local government power.

Mr. Powell: Would the Secretary of State be willing to tell the House of all the discussions which take place between him and his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), or does he think that discussions which take place between hon. Members outside the Chamber are not a subject for discussion on the Floor?

Mr. Mason: I entirely agree with the latter point, and it would be an incredibly lengthy job for me to disclose to the House all the discussions that I have with my hon. Friend.

United States of America (Secretary of State's Visit)

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on his recent visit to the United States of America.

Mr. Mason: The main purpose of my visit was to attend a luncheon organised by Business Week magazine to mark the publication of its special supplement on Northern Ireland in its edition of 23rd October. This was consequently a most


valuable opportunity to present Northern Ireland's case to senior executives of substantial American corporations interested in overseas American corporations interested in overseas investment, and also to hold detailed discussions with a number of firms which are currently planning specific investment projects

Mr. Molyneaux: Is the Secretary of State able to give some indication of the extent of additional investment by American companies already in Northern Ireland? Second, can he give an estimate of investment expected by undertakings not yet operating in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Mason: There has certainly been a quickening of interest in the Province among American companies. I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in his investment drive in Western Europe and in America. I have also been in America and Japan on the same campaign. This year, 29 American firms have visited Northern Ireland for the first time, compared with two over the whole of last year. Five new American companies have come into Northern Ireland for first time. They are investing £180 million in Northern Ireland and they will generate 3,500 jobs. That is the measure of the success that we are having for those companies which come, see for themselves, cross the threshold of disbelief, and then, on their own hard-headed business criteria, decide to invest in the Province.

Mr. Neave: Is the Secretary of State aware that we welcome the hard work that he and the Minister of State have done to stimulate future interest by American companies in the possibility of viable enterprise in Northern Ireland? Will he take urgent action to counter IRA propaganda among American businessmen, particularly about the disgusting protest that has been made?

Mr. Mason: Yes. I indicated to the House yesterday how we were countering that. Our ambassador in Washington has been aiding us in that campaign. I hope that the hon. Member and the House will recognise that we have managed to counteract that propaganda, because we can prove how many potential investors have come to the Province. We sponsor their visits and encourage them to come to see for themselves. Once they are there

and see that the Province is returning to normality, there is a chance of investment.

De Lorean Motor Company

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the expected date of the production of the De Lorean car.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has introduced for scrutinising progress on the De Lorean car project and expenditure in it.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): I understand that the De Lorean Motor Company expects to begin car production early in 1980.
The formal agreement with De Lorean, Limited requires the Department of Commerce and the Northern Ireland Development Agency to be supplied with quarterly management accounts within two months of the end of each quarter and with detailed audited annual accounts within four months of the end of the financial year. In addition, the Department has the right to request any other financial information which it may require.
The Northern Ireland Development Agency is also entitled to designate two of the company's directors for as long as it holds shares in the company, or while there is any outstanding loan or guarantee of indebtedness issued by the Department or the agency to the company or its subsidiaries or affiliates. As a further measure, the company has covenanted to supply both the Department and the agency with copies of all detailed business plans and reports submitted to the board of directors.

Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that I entirely understand and. applaud the aim of providing more jobs in West Belfast? Does he also accept that. the £55 million expenditure causes a certain amount of anxiety? Does he agree that the only real way in which there can be adequate scrutiny of that amount of money is by full public ownership which does not depend upon such a private enterprise venture? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the marketing and technical expertise is adequate for when De Lorean enters into a contract with


Lotus cars? Is he satisfied that the safeguards will ensure that the De Lorean venture does not become like that of other wonder cars which have been somewhat oversold—such as the Doble, Tucker and Brickhill cars?

Mr. Concannon: I am satisfied with the project and the effort that has been put into it. The project will provide 2,000 jobs in one of the most depressed areas. I should have thought that the House would be satisfied that we are doing something about that situation.
The outright grants to the firm comprise £28'5 million of total Government involvement. Investment of £17'5 million is in equity capital by the Northern Ireland Development Agency and it has been made on a normal commercial basis. A loan of £6'7 million has been made by the Department of Commerce and will be repaid with interest when the company is able to do so. Private investment in the De Lorean project so far amounts to about £13 million, which is not minimal.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: The Minister of State seemed to imply that directors could be appointed. Are they to be appointed by the Northern Ireland Development Agency? May we have an assurance that they will be more than a channel of communication between the Department of Commerce and the company and that they will have powers, including the power to veto expenditure, if they are worried about the way in which the project is developing?

Mr. Concannon: We have the power to appoint two directors. They have already attended their first meeting. One of then) is a Northern Ireland Development Agency accountant and the other is a senior executive of NIDA. I am satisfied that they will be looking after the interests of NIDA.

Mr. Fitt: Does the Minister accept that there are thousands of unemployed people in West Belfast, of all religions and all political persuasions, who are looking forward anxiously to the beginning of production in this car factory? This is an area which many people believe has been deliberately isolated over many years. Does he agree that there seems to be a tendency in certain quarters to knock this project? I am not talking of

my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). Will the Minister bear in mind that those who knock this project have for years requested the Government to invest finance which runs into millions, to keep the Belfast shipyard afloat?

Mr. Concannon: I am surprised about the knocking, but I am pleased that it has not come from the Opposition Front Bench. In one debate the Opposition thanked us for getting on with the job. I make no apology for taking account of the imperative need to promote jobs in that area. It is one of the worst unemployment black spots, not only in Northern Ireland but in the whole United Kingdom.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions and answers are beginning to get longer again.

Bombing Incidents

Mr. Litterick: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many bombs have been defused by the security services and how many explosions have occurred in Northern Ireland since 9th November 1978; and how many exploded or were defused in the four-week period prior to that date.

Mr. Mason: In the four weeks from 12th October to 9th November, there were 35 explosions, and five devices were neutralised in Northern Ireland. Since then 80 explosions have been recorded and 19 devices neutralised.

Mr. Litterick: I am grateful for that reply. In view of his assertion on 9th November, which was confirmed a week later by the Under-Secretary of State, that the security forces had the provisional IRA beaten, does the Secretary of State agree that it would be inadvisable if there were over-reaction by the security forces in response to the new outburst of violence? Does he agree that the emphasis should be political, economic and social?

Mr. Mason: My hon. Friend is obviously a headliner-reader. We have never used the words"the Provisional IRA are beaten." We have never used the word"victory ". We always talk about"making progress"in Northern Ireland. We have been making progress in the defeat of terrorism in the Province.
We have also been making progress on the economic front, as instanced by the replies that I gave earlier. I am hoping to make progress on the political front if the political parties will be co-operative.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since hope of success sustains the Provisional IRA, and since there is reason to believe that the outrages which are the subject of this Question were for the encouragement of the continued filthy tactics in H block, is the right hon. Member aware that we accept his assurance that there will be no yielding and no amnesty? We offer our sympathy and respect to the Northern Ireland prison service.

Mr. Mason: I can assure the House that there will be no return to special category status and that the Maze protestors will not be recognised. Hon. Members can rest assured—and I hope that the Opposition reaffirm this—that there will be no amnesty for those prisoners.

Homeless Persons

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is satisfied that enough is done to provide emergency help when people are bombed or driven out of their homes by anti-Government forces.

Mr. Carter: Yes, Sir. Officials of various Government Departments, public agencies and voluntary organisations act speedily to provide emergency help when people in any part of Northern Ireland have to vacate their homes through bombings or other terrorist activities. This help takes the form of immediate shelter, meals, transport, hardship payments and other special needs as well as first aid repairs to homes or the transfer of families to emergency housing. Operations are closely co-ordinated and every effort is made to give immediate assistance.

Mr. Perry: I thank my hon. Friend for that comprehensive reply. Does he realise the extent of the shock to those who are the victims of terrorism? Is he confident that the available services are satisfactory, particularly when it comes to handing out cash to people who have lost everything?

Mr. Carter: My hon. Friend is right. We probably all underestimate the shock

and disturbance that a bombing causes to any family. However, our emergency services make every effort to restore a home or family to normality as quickly as possible. It is a credit to all the organisations involved that we have never had any serious criticism of any of the emergency services that we provide.

Mr. Bradford: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the bombers do not stop at 5 o'clock on Friday afternoons and that the availability of the emergency services is not all that it might be at weekends? Secondly, does he accept that the extent of emergency repairs is often such as to render poorer people of the community out of pocket because of the new de minimis level in the order, which imposes a limit on compensation for criminal damage?

Mr. Carter: I am prepared to consider the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. During my time in Northern Ireland it has not appeared to me that anybody has suffered economically as a consequence of bomb damage. As the hon. Gentleman says, the bombers do not stop at midnight. Neither do the emergency services. The Housing Executive, all the voluntary organisations, the RUC and everybody else involved operate a 24-hour service.

Mr. Concannon: And all Ministers.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Did the Minister see the"Man Alive"programme earlier this week on the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast? Is he aware of the admiration that the programme invoked in all those who saw it for the selfless work of those in that hospital who look after the victims of terrorism?

Mr. Carter: As the programme pointed out, the hospital is at the forefront in the techniques that it employs and leads the whole of the Western world and probably the whole of the medical world. The House and everybody in Northern Ireland are indebted to the work of the surgeons, the medical staff and everybody working within the precincts of the hospital.

Harland and Wolff

Mr. Craig: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the present and future prospects of Harland and Wolff.

Mr. Faulds: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, whether any progress has been made in obtaining orders for Harland and Wolff.

Mr. Concannon: Harland and Wolff Limited has secured orders for three new ships—a bulk carrier and two ferries—so far this year. This means that the yard currently has eight ships on its order book, for delivery between the beginning of 1979 and the end of 1980.
Harland and Wolff cannot escape the effects of the present world recession in shipbuilding, in which no significant improvement is expected before the mid-1980s, and the size of the work force must continue to adjust to these circumstances. However, I am determined to do all in my power to help the company secure new orders where possible. I am also encouraging the company to diversify its activities into new fields, such as offshore oil-related work, to help offset the effects of the depression in shipbuilding.

Mr. Craig: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the importance of Harland and Wolff to the economy of Northern Ireland in terms of the people employed within the company and the many industries that service the yard? Is he satisfied that sufficient steps are being taken to make the yard competitive in the difficult circumstances that prevail? If so, what does it mean in terms of the labour force to be employed?

Mr. Concannon: As I have said, much depends on whether we are fortunate with new orders, bearing in mind the depressed state of the industry. The size of the work force will continue to adjust to those factors. Progress will be steady and controlled on the basis of full consultations and understanding among all concerned. Much will depend upon the relative performance of the shipyard and success in securing new orders and so maintaining a full work load.

Mr. Faulds: I understand the problems of the shipbuilding recession throughout the world, but is my right hon. Friend satisfied that his efforts to encourage diversification are proving successful?

Mr. Concannon: We have had some success in diversification at Harland and Wolff and the company is seeking work

in new areas. One such new area is the signed agreement that we have with MAN of West Germany for the manufacturing in Belfast of medium-speed diesel engines. We have also taken orders for offshore oil-related work. We have attempted to enter the structural steel work sector. A range of motor and cycle accessories is already being produced. These diversifications make a valuable contribution to the company's work load, but I do not think that they will ever provide a complete solution to the problems caused by the world shipbuilding depression.

Mr. Neave: Arising from the right hon. Gentleman's answer about diversification, will he indicate how many jobs have been preserved as a result of the progress in diversification? We welcome the new orders, but will he tell the House why no defence contracts have been awarded to Harland and Wolff? Will he approach his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about that?

Mr. Concannon: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have followed up the lack of defence contracts. However, there are not many defence contracts going around any of the shipyards. That is one of the problems. The agreement that we have with MAN will safeguard about 400 jobs in the engine workshops with the construction of the medium-speed diesel engines. I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that the engine works are suffering from a serious shortage of orders. I have to say that the number of people employed in that sector is bound to decrease.

Natural Gas

Mr. John Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what talks he has had regarding policy in regard to future use of natural gas in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Concannon: I have had talks with representatives of the Northern Ireland Gas Employers Board, the Association of Local Authorities of Northern Ireland, the General and Municipal Workers' Union, the Belfast city council gas department employees, the Northern Ireland coal trade and several community groups.

Mr. Ellis: When does my right hon. Friend expect to be able to make a statement? Before he makes his statement,


will he bear in mind that the cost of taking natural gas to Northern Ireland would run into many millions of pounds and that by the time the installations were completed it might be that the natural gas would be nearing depletion? Will he bear all these matters in mind?

Mr. Concannon: I hope to put the Government's proposals to the House early in the new year. I cannot commit myself to an exact date now. All the relevant factors, including the factor to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention, must be considered thoroughly.

Mr. Powell: Should it not be made clear that in the long term there is no conflict between the supply of natural gas in Northern Ireland and the consumption of coal in the Province, and that these are essentially distinct markets?

Mr. Concannon: During my meetings with various bodies it has been pointed out to me that there is a surplus of energy in Northern Ireland and that anything that we do to help bring forward one source of energy will be only to the detriment of one or more of the other sources.

Mr. Farr: As the right hon. Gentleman said in July 1977 that this issue would receive his attention, will he try to make a statement before the early part of next year? The matter is vital. The possibility of establishing a gas link between the mainland and Northern Ireland is extremely important.

Mr. Concannon: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have put some hard work into the project. As I have said, there is a surplus of energy in Northern Ireland. We are subsidising to the tune of £250 million one of the other sources of energy. When I started on this venture I had in mind a time scale of three months. However, every move that I made seemed to bring me up against another brick wall. I hope to announce our proposals to the House in early January.

Mr. Fitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Energy Commission within the EEC has recently discussed the problem and has indicated its willingness to provide substantial funds for the erection of the gas pipeline, whether that be from existing sources or from the newly
developed

Morecambe field, which I understand is to be opened up quite soon?

Mr. Concannon: As I have said, the problem in Northern Ireland is the cost of energy and what will happen to certain sources of energy if we introduce another subsidised source of energy.

Cement

Mr. Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any statement to make on the supply of and distribution of cement in the Province.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom Pendry): I met representatives of Blue Circle Ltd. on 28th November and expressed my concern at the recent acute shortage of cement in Northern Ireland and at the delay in implementing plans for new plant to cover longer term needs. As a result, the company is studying both problems urgently and is currently discussing its proposals for their solution with the interested parties. I am glad to be able to tell the House that production is now back to normal.
In addition, at my meeting I obtained the company's agreement to the creation of a joint working group within the Northern Ireland construction industry advisory council to monitor and progress plans for the adequate supply of cement in Northern Ireland. The construction industry and the trade unions, I am glad to say, have agreed to take part.

Mr. Powell: Is it not unsatisfactory that the supply of cement in the Province should be entirely dependent upon a single company? Should not the provision of a second independent source of cement in the Province be considered when we realise that the construction industry and other industries are constantly vulnerable to interruption as long as the supply is in monopoly hands?

Mr. Pendry: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that this is a step forward. The Government have not closed any option for the future. However, we thought that this would be the best way forward in the short term. I think that, with this committee meeting possibly in two weeks, we should give it the opportunity to do the job.

Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Labour Party, in its document on construction for the future in Britain, clearly laid down that there should be some measure of public ownership in the industry in order that there should be genuine competition in which the State would be involved?

Mr. Pendry: That option also is not closed permanently. I answer as I answered the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—namely, that in the short-term we feel that this is the best way forward. I hope that all will recognise that this is new and imaginative. We have the trade unions and the employers in the construction industry sitting down together, and we hope that we shall be able to make some progress.

Royal Ulster Constabulary

Mr. Freud: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the recruiting figures for the Royal Ulster Constabulary in each of the last three years and to date in 1978.

Mr. Pendry: During the last three years, the numbers of recruits joining the regular RUC were as follows:


1975
505


1976
581


1977
679


So far this year 631 recruits have joined the force, and the strength now stands at 6,116.

Mr. Freud: The figures are obviously encouraging, but does the Minister feel that enough is being done to recruit into the RUC? Will he now seek to set up a committee of inquiry to try to find out why there is an extraordinary reluctance on the part of the Catholic community to join the RUC?

Mr. Pendry: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the situation is very encouraging. It was perhaps unfortunate that his speech last night followed the winding-up speech, because, I too, would have been interested in the reply. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take note of the remarks that the hon. Gentleman made last night, and will be replying.
It is unfortunate that there are too few Catholics in the force. I think that is recognised by all. It is also unfortunate

that not sufficient encouragement is given in certain quarters to see that more Catholics join the force. I think that we are in accord on that matter. We hope that more will be done in future in this respect.

Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that these bald figures cloak a situation which is due to the Government not publicising the numbers of Catholics recruited, and therefore give no real indication whether the minority community has any respect for the RUC? Therefore, is it not absolutely relevant and necessary for us to know whether the minority community has any confidence in and is joining that force? Can we not somehow get at the numbers? I support the request of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) for some kind of inquiry to reveal the numbers.

Mr. Pendry: As my hon. Friend knows, it is difficult to arrive at numbers, because religion is not asked about on the application form. However, it is certain that the RUC is gaining more support. I am confident that it has the support of most people in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McCusker: If the Minister believes that lack of leadership in the Catholic community is deterring young Catholics from joining the RUC, may I ask what specific proposals he has to get leaders in that community to encourage their members to join the force?

Mr. Pendry: I feel that it is up to those leaders, not me.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: We would all like more Roman Catholics to join the RUC and hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) will encourage them, always subject to getting the best men and women irrespective of religion. However, is it not a matter of satisfaction to the House that a number of Roman Catholics are now making their mark in the modern RUC at high and key levels in the force?

Mr. Pendry: I believe that to be so.

Mr. Litterick: Will my hon. Friend tell the House who has responsibility under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act for knowing whether the RUC is actually conforming with the


terms of that Act with respect to recruitment?

Mr. Pendry: I do not believe that there is a quota system. I should need to look into this matter before replying to my hon. Friend.

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES

Mr. Ward: asked the Prime Minister when he last met the heads of nationalised industries.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I met some of the heads of the nationalised industries at a meeting of the National Economic Development Council yesterday. Any further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

Mr. Ward: Has my right hon. Friend discussed with the heads of nationalised industries the effect on jobs of micro-technology? What further steps has he in mind to deal with the social implications of this revolutionary change to ensure that we do not have greater divisions between those who have the privilege to work and those who have not?

The Prime Minister: At the NEDC meeting yesterday, at which we discussed this matter, two heads of nationalised industries were present and joined in the discussion. I have this afternoon answered a Question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw) on this matter and have put in the Library copies of the CPRS report together with my statement and the report by Mr. Eric Hammond, the chairman of the electronic sector working party. The Government wish to see here a programme of information and of carrying this into industry through training. We have set aside f100 million to achieve that aim.

Mrs. Thatcher: Assuming that the Prime Minister wants Parliament properly to carry out its constitutional function of examining public expenditure, may I ask whether he shares the concern of the Public Accounts Committee that, as things stand at present, it cannot adequately examine the accounts of the National Enterprise Board or the British National Oil Corporation? Will he therefore

agree to the Committee's demand that it should be allowed to look into the accounts of both those bodies?

The Prime Minister: I understand that there was a debate on this matter on Monday in which the Government's view on the issue was expressed. I shall, of course, look at it again in the light of—

Mr. Lawson: The Government did not express any view.

The Prime Minister: That is often the case with Governments. I shall look into the matter, if the right hon. Lady asks me to do so, to see whether there is any prospect of any change.

Mrs. Thatcher: I should like to press this question a little more strongly. The trouble is that there was no reply and there is no good reason for refusing admission to the accounts if Parliament is to carry out its function properly.

The Prime Minister: I note the right hon. Lady's view. The matter can be looked at to see whether there is any justification for what she said. However, I do not think that I should be asked to take a final decision in the light of a supplementary question.

Mr. Radice: Further to my right hon. Friend's answer on microelectronics, does he accept the conclusion in the CPRS report that the fears about employment and unemployment have been greatly exaggerated and that the situation will be far worse if we do not get into this area now?

The Prime Minister: There was rather a division of opinion on this matter at the NEDC meeting yesterday. I think that it was generally agreed that none of us could forecast the impact on unemployment. Some thought that the CPRS was too optimistic in its assessment of employment prospects. What was generally agreed among us was that, unless Britain remains in the forefront of all these new technologies, and if they are adopted by other countries, we are bound to fall behind. Therefore, it is the task of Government and both sides of industry to adapt to the social changes which will be required when we introduce these technologies.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 7th December.

The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I am holding meetings with both the Prime Minister of Egypt and the Prime Minister of Canada. They will, of course, be separate meetings. This evening I shall be host at a dinner in honour of Mr. Trudeau.

Mr. Skinner: Did the Prime Minister notice today's strong farm workers' lobby in Whitehall? Will he put on his"Farmer Jim"hat and consider their justified pay claim? Perhaps he will stop theorising about the subject as an employer and recommend to the powers that be that he will meet his part of the bill, and to hell with sanctions.

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether my hon. Friend knows the details of the farming situation. I should be very happy indeed to introduce him to some of the considerations. Perhaps I can inform him now that what the wages council does is to fix minimum wages—the actual wages are settled by negotiation on each farm.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the Prime Minister now tell the House what he proposes in regard to a further inquiry and action on the Bingham report and on the question of the Beira patrol?

The Prime Minister: I think that I am entitled to say that contacts are being continued between the Front Benches. The Government have their own clear view about what course should be followed. The Lord President will be very happy to continue those discussions to see whether we can get agreement.

Mr. Noble: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a majority of Labour Members and people in the country were delighted with his statement on the European monetary system yesterday? Does not he consider that the question of currency stability needs to be discussed in a much wider international framework, particularly with the United States?

The Prime Minister: Yes. In fact, I made reference to this yesterday. However, my hon. Friends question gives me the chance to say that I hope to meet the President of the United States. Indeed, a statement was issued an hour ago saying that, at the invention of President Giscard d'Estaing, the President of the United States, President Giscard d'Estaing himself, Chancellor Schmidt and I will be meeting on the island of Guadeloupe on 4th and 5th January to discuss matters of common political concern. There will be no formal agenda at this meeting, but our discussions will be on an intimate basis, which will enable us to exchange views with each other. I believe that it will be of benefit to the world.

Mr. Tapsell: When the right hon. Gentleman was on the mainland of Europe earlier this week, did he receive many congratulations on his recent savage attack on the memory of Sir Winston Churchill?

The Prime Minister: No one raised the question with me. I think that the Europeans have a sense of proportion about the cut and thrust of debate in this House.

Miss Maynard: With regard to farm workers' pay, will the Prime Minister consider favourably meeting the leaders of the farm workers' union and to look sympathetically at their claim, in view of the industry's ability to pay, the farm workers' production record, the fact that of those drawing family income supplement 17 per cent. are farm workers and also in view of the need to increase domestic food production in order to cushion the impact of the CAP on the British consumer?

The Prime Minister: If any meeting is to be arranged—I do not want to pronounce upon it—I think that it should be with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. Grylls: Will the Prime Minister take time today to answer the question of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the Comptroller and Auditor General going into the accounts of the NEB? Is it not rather disgraceful that he refuses to allow this to happen on the very day that the NEB is asking for another £1,000 million of taxpayers'


money? Would not that be the right way of doing it?

The Prime Minister: I have already answered that question.

Mr. Welsh: asked the Prime Minister if he will his official engagements for Thursday 7th December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Welsh: Is the Prime Minister aware of the inadequacy of present death grant levels in view of rising costs and inflation, and that to maintain the death grant at its original 1949 value it would have to be raised from the present level of £30 to about £123? In view of the great concern felt by pensioner organisations, will he therefore look into this matter in order to raise the grant to something more appropriate to present day costs?

The Prime Minister: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me some preliminary warning that he intended to raise this matter, which has enabled me to look into it. As he correctly said, the value of the death grant has substantially fallen behind. This matter was discussed very recently at the Labour Party conference, among other places, and has been taken up by a number of my hon. Friends. I think that there is obviously a substantial discrepancy here. But we are keeping a very tight control on public expenditure, and we intend to keep it within the limits which are laid down. Therefore, I cannot undertake that there will be an increase in the death grant during the current financial year.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will my right hon. Friend take an opportunity today to look at reports that the Co-operative Housing Agency is to be closed down? Is he aware that if this does take place it will cause great anger in the co-operative movement? Will he take steps to ensure that it does not?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of this, but I shall bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and ask him to communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Arising from the Prime Minister's statement yesterday about the development of microelectronics, is he aware that we have in Wales a unique country which would be a wonderful site for the development of this technology?

The Prime Minister: I heartily agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I am sure that this new technology could happily find a home in South Wales. However, I think that we must look at this from a national point of view and I cannot go further than my right hon. Friend has done so far.

Mr. Tim Renton: In the course of a busy week, has the Prime Minister yet had time to read yesterday's leading letter in The Daily Telegraph from the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) entitled"The Duty of a Minister "? If so. has he yet obtained a commitment to collective responsibility from the Secretary of State for Energy similar to that which his predecessor obtained? If he has obtained such a commitment, why is it not working?

The Prime Minister: I did read my right hon. Friend's letter, and I was very interested in it. If I have anything to communicate to the hon. Gentleman on the subject, I shall let him know in due course.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: If my right hon. Friend has time during the course of the day, will he look at the replies given by the chairman of the NEB to the Public Accounts Committee? Is he aware that the good reason given by the chairman for non-disclosure was that of business confidentiality? Is he further aware that, though on the Conservative side of the House, contrary to what the right hon. Lady said, business confidentiality is widely accepted as a good reason, it is not accepted as such by Labour Members?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has revealed what I had already suspected —that perhaps there are more points of view than that expressed by the right hon. Lady. It only goes to show how right I was to be cautious and not to be seduced by her blandishments. I shall certainly ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to consider the points raised by the right hon. Lady to see


whether there is any occasion to change the practice. But clearly, when we are dealing with private enterprise firms, a lot of value must be attached to business confidence if they wish it to be respected.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Will the Prime Minister find time today to complete his thinking on the advice to be given to those who, in the course of industrial disputes in essential services, are contemplating crossing the picket lines in order to ensure the safety of the public?

The Prime Minister: This is an important point. I understand that there is a Private Notice Question at 3.30 p.m. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will kindly wait for a few moments.

Mr. Loyden: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said about advanced technology, will he take some time today to consider the social consequences of that technology? Does he not agree that this is an important factor in the siting of future industries? Will he therefore consider whether the siting of INMOS in the South-West would be a contradiction of that policy?

The Prime Minister: I am aware that my hon. Friend is pressing the case for INMOS to be settled in the Merseyside area in view of the need there, but I cannot pronounce on that matter today. Of course the social consequences of basing these industries are important, as are the consequences that will flow from the employment that they will give. That I readily understand.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY STATEMENT (SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER)>

Mr. Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I could draw your attention to column 1427 of the Official Report in relation to yesterday's proceedings and a supplementary reply given by the Prime Minister, and ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you would ask the Prime Minister to withdraw some words that he used. In a supplementary reply he said

 It is remarkable that the Opposition's spokesman on foreign affairs…should regard it as a disgrace when we defend our national interests."—[Official Report, 6th December 1978; Vol. 969, c. 1427.]
I have checked very carefully, Mr. Speaker. I never used those words. Not only that; I have never used words to which that interpretation could be given. This may have been done inadvertently, or deliberately—but in whichever way, I should be grateful if the Prime Minister would withdraw those words.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to telephone No. 10 Downing Street this morning about this matter. I had not heard his actual words, but I notice that what he said was in reference to Britain's being a reluctant partner and that he thought that it was quite contrary to the national interest and wholly to be deplored.
I certainly do not want to make a lot of this—I withdraw anything if the right hon. Gentleman feels it improper to be said—but I do hope that we shall not be too sensitive on these matters. I must say that when I consider the attacks that are made upon my honour every day, I should be raising points of order with you all day, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is correct for Opposition Members to protest at statements about the national interest, when the Conservative Party, for a long time, has decided, quite wrongly, to claim the Union Jack as its party flag.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member knows that, rather than raising a point of order, he is seeking to score a point. We ought to move on to the Private Notice Question.

Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not deny that I was trying to score a point, Mr. Speaker, but what was the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) trying to do?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

HOSPITAL SERVICES (LONDON)

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Mr. Patrick Jenkin (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about the continuing disruption of hospital services by members of NUPE at West London and Charing Cross hospitals.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): I deplore the outbreak of unofficial industrial action at the West London and Charing Cross hospitals which is depriving patients of treatment. I understand that the action is a protest against the dismissal of three employees from the West London hospital. There are established procedures in the National Health Service which protect staff against unfair dismissal. These have not been used, although management has made clear its willingness to set up an appeals panel immediately.
The action of NUPE members at the West London hospital is having little effect on patient services there. Pickets from the AUEW and EEPTU at Charing Cross hospital are turning away deliveries and, as a result, shortage of essential supplies are limiting surgery to urgent cases.
I understand that local discussions are going on at present and I hope that these will be successful in resolving the dispute. I renew my appeal to the staff concerned to return to work immediately in order that services to patients may be resumed in both hospitals as quickly as possible.

Mr. Jenkin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will warmly endorse his condemnation of this unofficial action? But will he go further? Will he say whether he unequivocally supports management in seeking to discipline staff who have acted illegally and dangerously in switching off the boilers at the West London hospital last month, to the immediate danger of patients?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the two union officials involved, Mr. Hunt and Mr. Penfold, who have been willing to use the appeals procedure to which he has referred in respect of members of the union, have been totally unwilling to use it in respect of themselves?
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the area officer of NUPE, Mr. Bernie Grant, has claimed to management that whatever his union officials may have done, whether it be illegal or otherwise, they are fully protected in law under the present Government's legislation? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if that is in fact right, he and his colleagues bear a heavy responsibility for what is now happening?
How much longer have patients in the Health Service to go on putting up with strike-happy union branches using these patients as pawns in their struggles?

Mr. Ennals: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has used this as an occasion for delivering a lecture on his experience of industrial action. He will know that I strongly condemned the action when it was originally taken and the boilers were switched off. I made clear yesterday my attitude to the action that has been taken now, and I think that it is pretty clear that the public also know the attitude taken by the Secretary of State for Social Services.
I have also made it clear that the management has offered, straight away, to set in motion the appeals panel procedure and that it applies now. I think that to make further comment when negotiations are taking place at this time would not ease the matter. After all, this is a local dispute, and it is right that it should be resolved locally.
When the right hon. Gentleman says"How much longer?" I must make two points to him. First, of course a dispute such as this receives enormous publicity. It is right that it should receive it, because I think that it is deplorable. But, in general, the record of industrial action in the Health Service is not that which is conveyed by right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition. Secondly, in terms of what action I should take, the right hon. Gentleman well knows that, as a result of discussions that I had with the leaders of the unions and the leaders of the professions, there is now being considered by the general Whitley Council a new disputes procedure to operate at a local level, which I believe when carried out will remove this sort of disturbance.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that at Charing Cross hospital it is not members of NUPE who are taking part in this action, as erroneously suggested by the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin)? Everyone will support my right hon. Friend's appeal for the use of the proper procedures. There is some hope of solving this dispute provided that it is not exacerbated by unnecessary questions in this House.

Mr. Ennals: I very much agree with the point made by my right hon. Friend. I hope that the House will respect this, because I hope that the talks that are taking place now will lead to an end of the dispute.
In relation to the situation at Charing Cross, pickets at the hospital, from two engineering unions, as I have said—the AUEW and the EEPTU—are preventing supplies being sent in. Urgent surgery is still taking place, but non-urgent admissions have been stopped. As supplies run short, it will be progressively more difficult to maintain services, and it is not certain that all surgical lists can be maintained tomorrow, even for urgent cases. That emphasises the importance of reaching a solution today.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call one more question from each side of the House.

Mr. Crouch: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is enormous public concern these days that whenever there is a dispute in the Health Service, however local it is, it is brought at once to his attention and the attempt to deal with it is at the Secretary of State level? The real way of dealing wih these disputes is at a local level. Will the right hon.

Gentleman go out of his way to emphasise that he is devolving responsibility in this way, so that disputes are settled at a local level?

Mr. Ennals: It was certainly not my wish that this issue should be brought before the House today. It was the decision of the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) to raise it. I agree absolutely that these are local disputes. That is why I emphasise that the machinery exists for dealing with them. That machinery should be used, and it is not for this House to decide how to conduct industrial relations in such a dispute.

Mr. Faulds: Does my right hon. Friend realise that most of us on the Government Benches believe that any picketing activities, in support of unofficial action, which endanger the lives of patients are totally unacceptable?

Mr. Ennals: I very much welcome my hon. Friend's point. I entirely agree with him.

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Patrick Jenkin to conclude.

Mr. Jenkin: The Secretary of State has sought to challenge my right to bring this matter to the Floor of the House. Is he aware that he has signally failed to answer my point—that Government Ministers are contributing to this situation by the legislation that they have passed, and that the trade unions are claiming immunity under that legislation?

Mr. Ennals: I did not for one moment challenge the right of the right hon. Member to bring this matter before the House. I was responding to a question put by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who argued that these were local matters which should be dealt with locally.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Lord President to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 11TH DECEMBER—PRIVATE Members' motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, motions on the Appropriation (No. 4) (Northern Ireland) Order and on the Shops (Northern Ireland) Order.
Tuesday 12TH DECEMBER—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Wednesday 13TH DECEMBER—Motions on the rate support grant orders, on the Social Security (Contributions) (Mariners) Amendment Regulations and on the St. Lucia Termination of Association Order.
Thursday. 14TH DECEMBER—Remaining stages of the Public Lending Right Bill.
Motions on EEC document R/2790/1/78 on the European monetary system and R/3126/78 on its implications for the common agricultural policy.
Friday 15TH DECEMBER—It will be proposed that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment until Tuesday 16th January 1979.

Mrs. Thatcher: What has happened to the regulations for the conduct of the European Assembly elections? Draft regulations were laid in August and were expected to be passed by the end of the year. We have not yet had a debate on them. When shall we have it?
Secondly, the Leader of the House will be aware that he is constantly bombarded with requests to debate important matters such as the Procedure Committee report, the report on the preparation of legislation and the Government's White Paper on broadcasting. Why, then, is he trying to get the House to rise so early as 15th December? This is unusually early after a long recess, when all these matters and others are waiting to be considered.

Mr. Foot: On the first matter, following the approval on 30th November of

the European Assembly constitutional orders, there will now be a further regulation setting up the arrangements for 7th June. This will be the subject of the affirmative procedure and will be laid before Christmas.
The length of the recess is a matter for debate. If the right hon. Lady wishes to vote on this matter, she may do so when we come to it. Of course there are many important matters that the House wishes to discuss, but the length of the recess is not out of the ordinary. It is perhaps slightly longer than most recesses under a Labour Government and slightly shorter than recesses under a Conservative Government.

Mr. Strauss: My right hon. Friend will remember that earlier in the year the House considered the report from the Privileges Committee suggesting certain important and overdue changes in its working and administration. Those changes were agreed to by the House, but most of them require legislative confirmation. Does my right hon. Friend hold out any hope that in the less busy months to come we may have the necessary legislation to implement the House's decisions?

Mr. Foot: I cannot say that the House will not be busy when it returns from the Christmas Recess; I am sure that it will be. There is much important legislation to carry through. But I certainly acknowledge that on one of these questions particularly—a question that has arisen from a case in which my right hon. Friend participated many years ago—there is a very strong case for the matter being dealt with by legislation. We are still trying to see how we can do that. On the question of fines, I am doubtful whether we should proceed on that. But that is a different question, and I hope that consideration of that matter will not obviate proceedings on the other.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Does the Leader of the House expect the appropriate Minister to make a statement on the mission to Central Africa of the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes)? Does he think that the right hon. Member will be back in time to make a statement to the House before we rise? I hope that the Leader of the House will agree that in view of the situation it would


be wrong if no statement with ministerial authority were made between now and the end of January.

Mr. Foot: I shall look at both those questions but I cannot give the hon. Member any guarantee, because I do not know whether my right hon. Friend will have returned by then. I shall look at the other question, of course. That might be a matter that could be raised in the debate on the recess.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that the television licence order will be debated before the 40 days expire, towards the end of January?

Mr. Foot: I agree that that is a perfectly proper subject for debate, and there will be time for such a discussion when we return.

Sir David Renton: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Procedure Committee report is uniquely important? It was generally supported by all members of the Committee. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Government appear to be dragging their feet about allowing this matter to be discussed?

Mr. Foot: I do not propse that the House should drag its feet. On occasions when this matter has been raised I have agreed that there must be a proper debate in the House. I hope that we shall be able to debate it very soon after we return. I have indicated that it is better for the House to have a general debate before the Government provide their views on the subject.

Mr. William Ross: Are we taking the rate support grant order for Scotland as well as that for England and Wales on Wednesday? If so, will the Leader of the House ensure, Just for a change that the Scottish order is taken first?

Mr. Foot: I do not know whether I can give such a guarantee. I shall took at the normal practice and see whether we must follow it or not.

Mr. St. john-Stevas: May I press the Leader of the House a little further on the important point raised by\ my right hon. Friend on the Procedure Committee? Surely the Leader of the House must be aware that not only is there that

most important report to be debated, but there are at least eight other reports from the Procedure Committee with important recommendations, including that on Opposition motions on Supply Days. I appreciate that the Leader of the House is in need of a rest, but could we not have this debate in the week before Christmas, instead of adjourning early?

Mr. Foot: We believe that what we propose will be helpful to the House as a whole, but of course we can judge that when we have the debate. In the next Business Statement that I make I hope to indicate the debate on the eleventh and twelfth reports of the Expenditure Committee on the Civil Service and I hope also to be able to give some indication of the debate on the procedure matter.

Mr. Ashley: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion no. 87 asking for an independent public inquiry into the effects of hormone pregnancy test drugs on unborn children?
[That this House notes that children have been born with serious deformities due to hormone pregnancy test drubs; that no official warnings were issued about these drugs until eight years after the first reports indicating the possible dangers; that some doctors continued to prescribe the drugs for pregnant women after official warnings of the Committee on Safety of Medicines; that the Department of Health and Social Security have continuously rejected requests for an inquiry into these matters; and now culls upon the Secretary of State to set up an independent public inquiry.]
Does my right hon. Friend know that parents of such handicapped children are considering taking legal action and, if they do, there can be no debate in the House? May we have a debate as soon as possible?

Mr. Foot: I cannot promise an early debate, but in the light of my hon. Friend's question I shall study the other parliamentary questions that have been put and see what the situation is.

Mr. Rees-Davies: May we have a debate in the early part of next year on the report of the Royal Commission on gambling, bearing in mind the undertaking given in the Adjournment debate last week on behalf of the Home Office


that this was a matter uppermost in its mind and that several measures need to be implemented to reform the law in various aspects, as reported by Lord Rothschild? It is time that an opportunity was given for a debate in the House.

Mr. Foot: I fully accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman says about the desirability of having a debate on this matter when can find the time.

Miss Richardson: A few days ago we had an important report from the Data Protection Committee on the question of record-keeping on individual citizens. May I ask for an assurance from my right hon. Friend that soon after the recess we shall have a debate on this subject?

Mr. Foot: I cannot give an absolute assurance. I shall look closely at what my hon. Friend said and see what are the possibilities of a debate on the subject.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the Leader of the House aware that I have a complaint that my speeches in the House are not reported in the provincial press? The only consolation I have is that the right hon. Gentleman's speeches are also not being reported in the provincial press. Does this not prove without doubt that it would be a mistake to have a closed shop affecting the House or the press generally in reporting proceedings. and that a closed shop is unacceptable?

Mr. Foot: I do not think that affects the issue. I certainly hope that the dispute will be resolved as soon as possible. Irrespective of whose speeches are reported, I am very much in favour of a full, varied provincial press, even if the leader columns of many newspapers seem to express much the same opinion. In that respect I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Palmer: As there are difficulties about the introduction of the proposed electricity Bill, will my right hon. Friend arrange a day's debate soon on the excellent report by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries on this subject?

Mr. Foot: I shall certainly consider that. As my hon. Friend knows better than anyone, there has been considerable examination of the Bill. The Government would like to get the Bill on the

statute book, but we cannot always have our way.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: In view of the belated, wholly justifiable and currently fashionable preoccupation of the Government in microelectronics and other technological matters, how soon ma,, we have a debate on the many reports by the Select Committee on Science and Technology?

Mr. Foot: Not next week, but we will see what we can do soon afterwards.

Mr. Faulds: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House, without pleasantries or persiflage, when we may expect a statement to the House on the legislative intentions of the Secretary of State for the Environment on archaeological matters?

Mr. Foot: I fully accept the importance of this Bill. The finishing touches are being put to the legislative aspects and I hope it will be before the House very soon.

Mr. Tapsell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that exactly a year ago, during business questions, I asked him whether he was aware that our obligation under the EEC necessitated our announcing an easement of exchange control regulations before the end of that year, and that he categorically stated then that no such easement would be announced; and then the Government announced it the day after the House rose for the Christmas Recess? As those obligations require a further easement of exchange control regulations at the end of this year, will the Leader of the House say whether the Government intend again to announce it immediately after the House rises or whether it will be announced next week?

Mr. Foot: The preface of the hon. Gentleman's question makes it all the more necessary that I should be careful about the reply to it. I would not like to make a reply off the cuff without examining the matter in detail.

Mr. Grocott: In view of the events taking place in Namibia, which are amusingly described by the South African Government as elections, and the important effect that these have on British foreign policy, will my right hon. Friend undertake to have a debate on foreign affairs to discuss these matters as soon as possible?

Mr. Foot: I fully acknowledge everything that my hon. Friend says about the great importance of the subject and of some discussion in the House on what has happened in Namibia. The British Government played a leading part in trying to secure genuine elections in that country. We hold to that policy; that is what we want to secure. I shall discuss with the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary the question how we may have a discussion in the House.

Mr. Dykes: The Commission of the Communities is preparing a proposal for a European trade-mark office to be set up by 1980. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider holding a short debate on this subject in the new year, so that we may all press the good case for the office to be situated in London?

Mr. Foot: I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. Madden: In view of the growing support for the abolition of television licensing, will my right hon. Friend give a clear assurance that he will provide an opportunity for this matter to be debated within the 40-day limit on the prayer that has been tabled?

Mr. Foot: I fully accept, as I told my my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon), the strong feeling on the Government's side of the House about this matter. I certainly think that we should have a debate.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: When the House returns after the recess, will the Government introduce legislation to implement the policy proposed in Labour's programme for 1976 which the Lord President will recall was backed by an overwhelming number at the Labour Party conference? If the answer is"No," does it mean that the Government have completely fallen out with Labour Party conference policy?

Mr. Foot: Of the policy that we put before the electorate at the previous election, we still have a few items to carry into effect. We shall carry into effect as many as we can.

Mr. English: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his soft words about the Civil Service report. Does he realise

that slightly less than one-third of the House of Commons seeks a debate on this report, which was published more than 15 months ago, and that he has not yet promised it? Incidentally, I note his order of priority for next Thursday—authors come before the European monetary system. Is that right?

Mr. Foot: Both are important, and I hope that many authors will be read long after the European monetary system has sunk into history. That reveals a proper sense of priorities. I hope that I have a better vote of thanks than that from my hon. Friend, because we have gone out of our way to meet his legitimate request on several occasions for a debate on this report.

Mr. Moate: Further to the point made about next Thursday's business, will the Leader of the House tell us how he expects the debates to proceed? How much time does he expect to be provided for the debate on the European monetary system and the debate on the EEC documents? At what time does he expect those debates to start?

Mr. Foot: It depends how co-operative everyone is.

Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend consider as a matter of urgency a debate on the Co-operative Housing Development Agency following the story in today's Guardian and the questions asked about the unilateral decision to close it down? It is a matter of great concern to Labour Members of Parliament. Would my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on this subject, so that we, could well go on to other topics such as the lamentable decision to sell out Kirkby to private enterprise?

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend refers to the reply made by the Prime Minister on the subject. I do not think that I can add anything to it.

Mr. Litterick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the document reviewing the supplementary benefits scheme, entitled"Social Action ", has been widely misrepresented as showing the views of Her Majesty's Government, particularly the Department of Health and Social Security, on the future of the supplementary benefits system? Will my right hon. Friend therefore give an undertaking that there


will be an early debate, so that the DHSS in particular and hon. Members in general can express their views on that document?

Mr. Foot: There will be a debate when the matter comes forward, but I cannot promise one next week or that I shall be able to announce it in next week's Business Statement.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion No. 114 on the NEB micro-processing industry and the need to locate all employment related to that project in areas of high unemployment?
[That this House would strongly resist any attempt to locate the headquarters and laboratories of the NEB-created Inmos in Bristol; and insists that all employment related to that important project be located in assisted areas.]
Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the employment will be situated in such areas and a further assurance that, if there is to be an adverse decision, it will not be announced during the recess?

Mr. Foot: I understand fully the great importance attached to this matter by my hon. Friend and by many of my other hon. Friends from different parts of the country. My hon. Friend may rest assured that representations have been made in the strongest possible terms. I cannot make any further statement about when a decision will be announced.

Mr. Lee: Can my right hon. Friend give us further information about the Gilbert Islands independence Bill? I appreciate that the conference that is to resolve the matter has not yet finished its deliberations, but the House would appreciate an indication about the likely timetable of the Bill before we rise, so that we know where we shall stand when the House returns in January. Some of us will have quite a bit to do with that Bill.

Mr. Foot: I have no doubt that this is a matter that could be raised after my

Business Statement next Thursday. I shall certainly come well equipped to answer my hon. Friend then.

Mr. Speaker: With regard to the business for next week and the debate on Tuesday 12th December on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, hon. Members may hand in to my office by noon on Monday 11th December their names and the topics that they wish to raise. The ballot will be carried out as on the last occasion. An hon. Member may hand in only his own name and one topic.
The Consolidated Fund Bill includes the Defence and Civil Votes on Account for 1979–80, presented in House of Commons Papers Nos. 54, 55 and 59, and the Supplementary Estimates for 1978–79, presented in House of Commons Papers Nos. 52 and 53. It will be in order on the Second Reading of the Bill to raise topics falling within the ambit of the expenditure proposed in those papers. I shall put out the results of the ballot later on 11th December.

BILL PRESENTED

INDUSTRY

Mr. Secretary Varley, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Millan, Mr. Secretary Morris, Mr. Secretary Booth, Mr. Gerald Kaufman and Mr. Leslie Huckfield presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the limits on sums borrowed by, or paid by Ministers of the Crown, to, the National Enterprise Board, the Scottish Development Agency and the Welsh Development Agency and subsidiaries of theirs, on sums paid by the Treasury in pursuance of guarantees of loans to the Board or either of those Agencies and on loans guaranteed by the Board or either of those Agencies or subsidiaries of the Scottish Development Agency: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 40].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Motion made, and Question proposed.

That, at this day's sitting, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Robert Sheldon relating to Civil and Defence Estimates as soon as the House has entered upon the business of Supply.—[Mr. Tinn.]

Mr. Ron Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that last year many of us on the Back Benches found ourselves in the same sort of dilemma as we face today. Two years ago we were allowed to debate the substantial sums of money included in the civil and defence Estimates, but last year the Government changed the form in which the motions were put down and we were precluded from debating in detail the Supplementary or other Estimates.
You ruled, Mr. Speaker, that it was in order for those of us who wished to do so to speak to the motion and to state our view that a debate should take place. May I have your guidance on whether that is possible again this year?

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he put his point of order. The matter is quite straight forward. This is a debatable motion, but what is not permissible, if I may say so in advance, is for hon. Members to go into detail on any of the Estimates. All that we can do is to decide whether the House is in favour of the business motion, which will require me to put the Estimates formally.

Mr. Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have before us a motion which demands that you should
 put forthwith any Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on the Motions in the name of 
the Financial Secretary to the Treasury
 relating to Civil and Defence Estimates as soon as the House has entered upon the business of Supply.
Many hon. Members on the Labour Benches feel that it is indefensible that we should be expected, on the nod, to vote for or against the substantial sums of money involved. As you said, Mr. Speaker, we may be able to raise certain issues relating to the civil and defence Estimates if we are lucky in the ballot for

the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, but if we allow the Estimates to go through by default now or vote for them, there will be little point in raising any quesions next week, because the Estimates will already have been passed by the House.
It has been suggested that on other occasions we can vote on documents that include these Estimates, but I do not think that that is so in relation to the Supplementary Estimates. I shall not go into detail on those Estimates, but it is clear that considerable increases are demanded across a whole range of services.
The hon. Members who signed the motion to reduce the defence Supplementary Estimate did so because they are opposed to the Government's demand that we should spend another £250 million on defence. They are not opposed to spending the money that is required to meet increases in the pay of members of the armed services. That is why the motion includes the figure of about £143 million.
It is well known that the proportion of Britain's GNP that is spent on defence is more than that of any other European NATO country. We believe that it should be brought down at least to the average of those countries.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Thomas: Finally—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did I hear the word"finally "?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I know that some of my hon. Friends want to say something about this matter. May I appeal to you to allow us to vote on the separate Estimates? There will be five motions before the House, and many of us wish to express our disapproval in the Lobby about the final motion on the defence Supplementary Estimates. However, if there is to be only one Division, we shall vote against the Estimates as a clear indication that we are no longer prepared to see the Government spending more and more on defence while cutting back expenditure on housing, health, social services and other essential services.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not advance the case that he would make if the business motion were not carried. I want to make clear to the


House that I shall put each Estimate separately. If the House wishes to divide on any Estimate, it may do so.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) and to several other hon. Friends who, I know, feel very strongly on this matter and wish to have a full debate that there may be some misunderstanding about the nature of the propositions that will be coming to the House shortly and in the period ahead?
It may be useful for me to remind the House and my hon. Friends that there will be a minimum of three days on the individual Services.

Mr. Frank Allaun: That will be too late.

Mr. Foot: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Alluan) will wait a moment. There will also be two days on the defence White Paper in the spring.

Mr. Allaun: It will be too late then.

Mr. Foot: If my hon. Friend will allow me to continue, I can tell the House that there will be a further day in July on discipline, which may be taken formally to allow for a more general debate on defence.

Mr. Allaun: It will be too late for us to do anything about the Estimates at that time.

Mr. Foot: If my hon. Friend will listen to the end of what I am saying, he may understand my point. I have given the House that information because there may be hon. Members who are interested in those other aspects, which will be able to be raised in those debates.
The winter defence Supplementary Estimates of £248,547,000 before the House are almost entirely pay allowances, pensions and price increases. Moreover, all the Votes will come before the House again and any of them could be the subject of the remaining 26 Supply Days.
Although I appreciate the case that my hon. Friends have put and accept that they may wish to press it further—knowing that they raised the matter a year ago —I hope that they will also be able to take this matter into account. It is the fact

that these issues will be debated afresh and many of them will be voted upon at a later stage in the proceedings of the House.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That statement, though technically correct, might be misinterpreted by those who, unlike you, Mr. Speaker, do not understand the procedures of the House. I wonder whether you would confirm that these resolutions, if passed today, have no validity in law. The moment next Tuesday that the Consolidated Fund Bill is passed, by virtue of an Act of the nineteenth century, these resolutions that we are passing today without discussion automatically obtain the force of law, although they are merely resolutions of the House of Commons. Would you agree, Mr. Speaker, that when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House says that these matters may be discussed again, the stress is on"may "?

Mr. Speaker: I do not give interpretations of the Lord President's speeches.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I repudiate what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has just said. Twelve months ago, I asked:
 On a point of order. Am I right in believing that if this is voted on today, any subsequent debate would be completely worthless and ineffective?
You replied, Mr. Speaker:
 If this motion is carried, I shall put the Question without discussion on each of the Estimates. That is what it means."—[Official Report, 12th December 1977; Vol. 941, c. 46.]
This means, Mr. Speaker, that without debate we shall pass a large sum of money today and there will be no opportunity to debate whether that is good.
I intend, Mr. Speaker, to abide strictly by your limits. I am not questioning the merits of this vast expenditure on arms, which, I am sure I do not need to tell you, hardly warms the cockles of my heart or those of my hon. Friends. I shall stick strictly to the point. I wish to oppose the acceptance by the House of this motion from the Prime Minister because it means that, without any debate, the spending of an additional sum of £248 million on defence will take place.
I must reply to one point that the Leader of the House has just made. This question arose 12 months ago. A deputation


of hon. Members went to see the Lord President. There are hon. Members here today who will say that on that occasion my right hon. Friend promised that it would not happen again and that there would be an opportunity for debate. I ask him whether he will reply to that point.
One of the origins of parliamentary democracy, on which I am not attempting to lecture you, Mr. Speaker, is that before expenditure takes place there should be a debate, a vote and a decision. Indeed, you, Mr. Speaker, have the responsibility to see that that right is fully observed. You also have a second responsibility, Mr. Speaker—that is, to preserve the rights of Back Benchers. On this occasion, because the two Front Benches are united in spending more on arms, they have decided that there will be no debate on this matter. Labour Back Benchers —I do not notice that Tory Members are vociferous on this point—are denied the rights that you, Mr. Speaker, are here to defend.
I hate to address my remarks to you, Mr. Speaker, as I do not blame you. I blame the two Front Benches for the predicament in which we are being placed. Usually, Mr. Speaker, there is a full debate in this House before a large sum of money—

Mr. Tebbit: Rubbish.

Mr. Allaun: The hon. Gentleman is right in some respects. Today is an example. Usually, if there is an item involving several millions of pounds, a whole day's debate may take place on it. Today we are debating an item of several hundred millions of pounds without a debate at all. It can hardly be argued that shortage of parliamentary time has prevented a debate. We have just heard the dates of the Christmas Recess. We have had a Summer Recess the like of which I have never experienced before in my 23 years in the House. One might say, without being disrespectful to the House, that it is becoming almost a temporary holiday home
What we are doing today would certainly not be acceptable in the United States legislature. This is part of the 3 per cent. per annum increase in arms spending decided by the House last March

—a costly and foolish decision because it will encourage similar increases by the Russians. In the United States, Congressmen are challenging the 3 per cent. Parliamentary procedure is not prohibiting American Congressmen debating this subject. If this is taking place in the American Congress, why should not we have an opportunity to discuss this matter? Irrespective of whether Congress decides to drop the 3 per cent., why should we not be allowed to discuss the issue?
Our arms bill is raised from a little over the monstrous sum of £7 billion a year by another £248 million and no one is allowed to say a word. There is no explanation at all of some of the items we are being asked to pass. I refer to one of them. We are told that an additional £49 million is being sought to compensate for delays in production receipts for air systems. Perhaps some hon. Member could explain what that means. I do not understand it, and quite a lot of people outside the House will not understand it. There is no word of explanation.
To whom are we selling? To which country? What kind of weapons or stores are we selling? Nobody knows. Yet this sum is to go through the House without discussion, just as the decision to make the first atom bomb went through the Cabinet without discussion. This is government without explanation, government by concealment. It is happening continually, and it is eroding our democracy. There have been no fewer than 16 Supplementary Estimates for defence in the past five years. I think that you will have some doubts about this process, Mr. Speaker.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to answer this question. If this procedural vote is taken this afternoon, can there be any subsequent debate before the expenditure is sanctioned? If there cannot be such a debate, we are making a mockery of democracy.

Mr. English: This is a matter of some importance, as I hope Tory Members, on another occasion, will be the first to realise. The situation is that no expenditure may lawfully be incurred by Her Majesty's Government without the approval of Parliament as a whole. That is done by an Appropriation Act.
Pending the Appropriation Act, published and agreed once a year, there are Consolidated Fund Acts such as the one due to be dealt with on Tuesday next. By tradition, the Committee stage of a Consolidated Fund Bill is never debated upon any amendment. I believe that there may be a technical amendment, involving the word"may ", to the extent of saying the Government"may"or may not spend some money. The details cannot be amended.
The reason for this, Mr. Speaker, is that your predecessors in the Chair have said upon successive occasions that it would be pointless for the House to discuss something twice. We may not move an amendment to any item of public expenditure on the Consolidated Fund Bill on Tuesday night, first, because we are taking the Second Reading and, secondly, because immediately afterwards, on that night or on the Wednesday, the Committee stage will be taken formally, when no amendment will be possible.
The reason for this is that, theoretically, we have discussed all the issues upon Supply resolutions. Those Supply resolutions, like any other resolutions of the House, have no force in law of themselves. They do have force, however, because of the Public Accounts and Charges Act 1891 which, in effect, makes them temporary Consolidated Fund Acts. It gives them a temporary legal force and makes them temporary appropriations under section 2(1) of the Act from the time a Consolidated Fund Act is passed. In other words, that thing which we are not allowed to discuss in detail on Tuesday night will validate what we are allowed to vote on today.
This is an extraordinary procedure which has grown up over a period. The theory is that the expenditure of a Government must not be discussed anywhere save upon the Floor of the House. This is what is at fault. We are supposed to discuss these things upon a group of Supply Days. Wisely and properly, in a democracy, we have said that the subject for debate on those Supply Days is entirely a matter for the Opposition Front Bench. The right hon. Lady and her colleagues decide what we are to discuss today. They wish to discuss the Ford sanctions and connected matters, something entirely proper to be discussed in that this is obviously an issue of public

importance. However, for every day that one of these subjects of public importance is discussed, some portion of the expenditure of the Government is not discussed. Today we are to discuss sanctions against Ford. That is well and good. The moment we do so we lose for ever the possibility of discussing public expenditure totalling tens of thousands of millions of pounds. That cannot be a right and proper procedure.
This is why my colleagues—and by that I mean every hon. Member of this House belonging to every party who has signed the motion relating to the report on Me Civil Service that I mentioned in business questions today—wishes to have debates upon the report on the Civil Service by the Expenditure Committee and upon the Procedure Committee's report. It cannot be right that the whole of public expenditure is ignored because it cannot be discussed anywhere once we decide to discuss another subject on a Supply Day. The delay on the part of my right hon. Friend in bringing forward these matters for discussion is simply causing him more trouble than he need have got into.
Today is a good example. We are faced with sums of money totalling tens of thousands of millions of pounds. We have only to look at the Order Paper to see such sums. There is the sum of £17,470,584,900 on the first motion alone. On the third motion, the figure is £1,860,115,000 and on the fourth motion it is £3,155,066,000. Such sums are not to be discussed. All that we are to be allowed to do, as you have correctly ruled, Mr. Speaker, is to say that we should discuss them. If this motion is passed, as it probably will be, because the Opposition Front Bench wants to see it passed as much as the Government Front Bench, there will be no opportunity of voting on any amendment to this expenditure.
I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the slightly different practice of some of the Commonwealth countries and the United States Congress, which have taken our original procedures and used them. In other countries there are things known as appropriations committees, which are allowed to discuss public expenditure and to say No, you should not spend so much on a particular subject. You should. perhaps, spend more on some other subject." I imagine that many of my hon.
Friends who have raised this matter would say that we should spend less on defence and more on social security. Many hon. Members opposite would no doubt wish to say that we should spend more on defence and, perhaps, less on social security. The interesting point is that none of them will be allowed to say what he believes.
On whichever side of the House hon. Members may sit, whatever the electorate decides about who should govern and who should be in opposition, the same individuals will not be allowed to discuss these matters unless they are in the Government and unless they are, above all, Treasury Ministers. That is why the Expenditure Committee recommended in its fourteenth report—the last report of last Session—that the financial procedures of this House needed alteration. That is why, more than 15 months ago, in its report on the Civil Service, the Expenditure Committee recommended a much-needed change in our financial procedure. That is why the Procedure Committee made similar recommendations. That is why when, on Monday evening, we were discussing the reports of the Public Accounts Committee, everyone who spoke said that these procedures needed revision. That is why the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said that these reports should be debated. They have not been debated and it has not been announced that they are to be debated. We now have a situation in which we have to say that the expenditure of these tens of thousands of million of pounds is not to be discussed.

Mr. Newens: I wish to speak against the motion relating to the Supplementary Estimates. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), I have considerable misgivings about the proposals concerning military items in these Estimates. I also feel strongly about the principle, which has been raised by my hon. Friends, of approving the expenditure of large sums of money without debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) pointed out that there was a means whereby we could negate the motion that we may approve today if we seek to vote against the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Many of us would not wish for one moment to vote against this fund, because it includes many items of which

we are in wholehearted support. In those circumstances, that is no substitute for hon. Members having the opportunity of a proper debate on these items here today before they are put to the House. Therefore, I wish to speak against the Prime Minister's motion that is before the House.
The original Estimates that were before the House were fully debated before any decision was reached upon them. No one in this House, no one who believes in democratic principles, would argue that expenditure should be incurred by the Government, within the original Estimates, after being approved without a debate, but here today we are taking a decision which means that this expenditure will be added to very considerably without any discussion being allowed on those items which we are being asked to approve.
I argue that the Supplementary Estimates now before the House alter, in a number of respects, the character of our original decision on the Estimates earlier this year. This raises a principle that we as a House have a right to debate. In the first place, all of us are aware of the arguments that have been advanced in recent years, from both sides of the House, for the containment of public expenditure. On a number of occasions over the course of recent years the House has approved cuts in public expenditure to which a number of my hon. Friends and I have been wholeheartedly and completely opposed.
If we approved of those cuts I am quite sure that we did so only after a certain amount of soul searching, and had we been aware originally that additional moneys were to be made available, we would certainly not have agreed that those cuts or limitations should have been imposed. We would have opposed the addition of the supplementary sums that are being proposed here today.
For that reason it is quite wrong that those sums should be approved without a full debate, as is proposed in the motion of the Prime Minister today. The present Supplementary Estimates deeply affect the attitude of all of us to the whole package of public expenditure that the House is being asked to accept for the whole year. The House did not approve the carrying out of certain policies or the expenditure of money on


certain items without regard to the expense. The House approved certain expenditure, bearing in mind the need for economies and the priorities that the House then had in view. The fact that certain additional sums of money are now to be made available demands that we in this House should have an opportunity, in debate, of arguing where those additional sums should be expended.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Gentleman seems to be having a debate. Does he realise that a large amount of this expenditure is for an increase in forces' pay? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us not start debates on this. I am hoping that we can soon come to a decision, because we are taking a Supply Day.

Mr. Newens: The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) raised a point that in many ways impugns the views of many of those who signed the amendment, which is not being debated. I point out to him that many hon. Members on the Government Benches would argue very strongly in favour of that expenditure, which would enhance the pay of the forces. Many of my hon. Friends and I would argue.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am quite sure that the hon. Member would do so if there were a debate on it, but he must confine his argument to the Prime Minister's motion.

Mr. Newens: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for responding in that way. I hope that you will forgive me, Sir, for having been distracted from my argument by the intervention of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford. He showed how important it is that the House should have an opportunity to discuss these matters. For reasons that I fully understand, many hon. Members are denied the opportunity of advancing their arguments on these different items, which would be debated if this motion before the House were defeated—because I take it that if this motion were defeated it would be incumbent upon the Leader of the House to find means whereby we would have the opportunity to debate these matters.
For this reason I believe that hon. and right hon. Members on the Conservative

Benches, who so often argue about the need to contain public expenditure, should vote with us when we oppose this motion, because it would give the whole House the opportunity to debate these items in detail. I make no bones of the fact that I am wholeheartedly in favour of much of the expenditure that is proposed, but in the form in which this motion is placed before the House it does not give us the opportunity of differentiating between expenditures that we think are desirable and those that we would wish to reject. Part of the funds relates to defence expenditure. some hon. Members are in favour of more expenditure while others, like myself, are in favour of much more drastic cuts than anything we have seen.
I have already made clear to the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford that I strongly sympathise with the pay needs of the armed forces and I certainly would not wish to cut that item back. On the other hand, we oppose other items that are involved here. Therefore, it is necessary that they should be taken separately, with the opportunity for a debate on particular items about which we feel extremely strongly.
In the document"Supplementary Estimates 1978/79"it is stated on page 3 that we are being asked to provide some of these funds for new services. If we are being asked to obtain additional money to meet the cost of any new services, it means that the very principle involved in the provision of these new services affects the House very pertinently. Why should the House be asked to accept this without debating the principles that are involved? Why should we have to walk through the Lobbies—or perhaps not even take it to a Division—to approve new services the objectives of which are not implicit?

Mr. Burden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a great deal of validity in what has been said so far. Do you agree that, since this is a matter for the House as a whole, the Leader of the House should be present? Surely the Financial Secretary to the Treasury cannot come to a decision on a matter that is the responsibility of the Leader of the House.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Sheldon): Further to that


point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Lord President apologises for his temporary and unavoidable absence. He has urgent matters to attend to and hopes to return to the Chamber as soon as possible.

Mr. Cormack: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is no more urgent or important matter for the Leader of the House to attend to than the business of this House. May I respectfully submit that his place is in this House here and now?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want to spend time on points of order about where the Lord President is and what he is doing. I cannot instruct anyone to come here.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the outset you stipulated the limitations on the debate. Will there be a Government reply to the various points that have been made, or will this debate simply dissolve into an immediate Division?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know. If anyone rises, I shall call him. If no one rises, I shall not.

Mr. English: The business of Supply is for the Opposition to determine. Most of the Shadow Cabinet is present. This issue could easily be resolved by the Opposition allowing one of their Supply Days to be devoted solely to the discussion of public expenditure.

Mr. Speaker: It is an old custom in this House that the Opposition, when allotted a Supply Day, should be allowed to have it.

Mr. Newens: I should certainly be happy if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House were here to hear what 1 am saying on this important issue. I realise that he may have other pressing engagements, but it is important for the House to consider the approval of expenditure of this character and dimension without the opportunity of discussing the issues.
The Supply Estimates provide that new services can be developed with the funds that we are being asked to approve today.
Those new services might involve principles about which many of us would feel extreme concern. For example, many of us are wholeheartedly opposed to the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons. This expenditure could possibly relate to such development. In the past, the House decided on the question of nuclear weapons without even members of the Cabinet being aware of the implications of the decision. We have the right to ask what this money will be spent upon.
Many of us have the impression that it is being spent on nuclear weapons, but we shall be precluded from debating that if we pass the motion.
The House has the right to question Ministers, but no Defence Minister is present—

The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Dr. John Gilbert): rose—

Mr. Newens: I apologise. I am glad to see my right hon. Friend present. I missed him because he was snuggled down on the Front Bench.
Other services can be provided for out of these funds, and this may include the question of the SAS. In pressing for an adequate debate I remind hon. Members that the House often spends long periods discussing trivial matters, but the voting through of huge sums such as this is done on the nod.
If we pass the motion the amendment that stands in the names of many of my hon. Friends and myself will not be put to the House. It is totally undemocratic to deprive hon. Members of a proper vote and discussion.
Another aspect arises out of the defence Supplementary Estimates. Many of us feel that a quantitative addition to the sum total expended will involve an important question of principle. The Government are committed to reducing the percentage of gross national product spent on defence to that of the average of our NATO allies. Approval of this expenditure today may well change the direction of that policy so that we are spending more, not less. If the Government have decided to change their policy in that respect, that is a question of principle that the House should have the chance to debate. This should not be achieved by stealth.
This issue involves a global sum of public expenditure—a further matter of great importance. Many hon. Members believe that increases in public expenditure are a cause of inflation and that the House should turn its attention to the subject of public expenditure. The Opposition have frequently asked for much greater cuts than the Government have made. Therefore, we need to examine the effects of these Supplementary Estimates on the global sum and to consider their inflationary effect. It is only right that we should have an opportunity to discuss these matters before decisions are taken. It is not enough merely to take these matters on a vote.

Mr. Cryer: Does not my hon. Friend accept that expenditure of this nature is important in terms of the Government's economic policy? Defence expenditure tends to be more inflationary than much other expenditure because there is no production of goods and services to meet the demand created by the vast majority of people, who are not in the armed services.

Mr. Newens: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is a further reason why the House should not let this expenditure go through on the nod.
We are being asked to approve expenditure that will add to inflationary pressure. Those Members of the Opposition who constantly call for cuts in public expenditure will be blaming Labour Members for calling for greater amounts of civil public expenditure and will accuse us of being responsible for inflation. Therefore, we have a right to advance our views on this subject and, unless this matter is debated fully, we shall be prevented from so doing.
Let me turn to the subject of priorities.

Mr. Burden: On the subject of priorities, the Leader of the House will know that an important matter is to be debated a little later today.

Mr. Newens: This motion is also important.

Mr. Burden: The Leader of the House is fully aware of the views of his hon. Friends below the Gangway. Will the right hon. Gentleman allow the House to get on with business by giving his hon. Friends an opportunity to debate this

matter next week?

Mr. Newens: I am appalled by the hon. Gentleman's attitude. He is suggesting that later business on the Order Paper is more important than discussion of these huge amounts of expenditure.

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is suggesting that a motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is less the business of the day than is a motion to adjourn the House.

Mr. Newens: I agree that the mattcr that is now before the House is serious. If Parliament means anything and is not to be taken as a rubber-stamping farce, we should be able to debate these matters.
I take great exception to the remarks of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden). I am sure that he and his hon. Friends in a General Election campaign will attack Labour Members of Parliament for arguing in favour of greater public expenditure in certain respects. The hon. Member is suggesting that we should put this important motion on one side to enable him to get on discussing the business in which he is interested. He wants to fight in a Tweedledum and Tweedledee manner.

Mr. Michael Marshall: The hon. Gentleman is being carried away by his own vehemence. Obviously he did not hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) said. He called on the Leader of the House to provide time for a separate debate on this motion. In view of the strong feelings which have been expressed, I am sure that many Members of the Opposition would support such a suggestion. Since the House is rising early for Christmas, I suggest that that matter should be discussed separately before Christmas. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will join with the Opposition in pressing his right hon. Friend to accede to that suggestion.

Mr. Newens: If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House puts forward another proposal, that might well meet the situation. I am dealing with the position as it now stands.

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious that the substance of this matter cannot be debated.
Therefore, I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not intend to accept such a motion at this stage. I shall accept a closure motion when I think that it is wise to do so.

Mr. Newens: My hon. Friends and I have argued on many occasions that the House should debate issues about which we feel deeply. However, on many occasions the procedure has been such—this has been acceded to by both Front Benches—that these matters have been precluded from debate. Therefore, my hon. Friends and I have no alternative but to take our present course because this is the only means of bringing these matters to the notice of the House. It is scandalous that we should be prevented from debating these issues because certain hon. Members want to get on with the usual rigmarole.

Mr. Lee: Is there not an ominous parallel with the situation that arises out of much of the business relating to the EEC? The House is asked to deal with matters retrospectively, or is not given adequate time to discuss the EEC budget, or we find that the budget is presented in a misleading and compressed form. A similar arbitrary way of dealing with expenditure is now spilling over into the procedures of this House. Should we not resist this process so far as we can?

Mr. Newens: I agree with my hon. Friend. The House knows that I do not normally participate in trifling arguments. This is a matter of great principle, and I am sure that some Opposition Members sympathise with me. On this motion we are being asked to do something that is wrong and are being prevented from carrying out our job as Back Benchers.
The Opposition have argued on many occasions for cuts in public expenditure relating to health, education and the welfare services. If on this motion we agree additional military expenditure, the Opposition may argue that the global sum needs to be contained. Therefore, the pressure for more cuts in civil expenditure—expenditure that many Labour Members favour—may increase.
Later today the House will discuss the subject of inflation in general. Decisions could be taken in other spheres which

would lead my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce an additional Budget. If that happens, expenditure on health, welfare and education may be cut so that we may contain expenditure of a military nature of the type we are being asked to approve today.
In my view, these Supplementary Estimates could themselves contribute considerably to inflation, and I therefore argue that the House has a right to debate these matters on another occasion. I hope that something will be done to make this possible. The idea that the House should pass a huge sum on the nod, without proper debate, must be considered—

Mr. Litterick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am attempting to listen to my hon. Friend's fascinating speech, but there is such a row coming from the Opposition Benches that I am finding it very difficult to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I may say that I understand that there is much rejoicing in Heaven over a sinner that repenteth. From time to time, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) gives me cause for worry.

Mr. Newens: I was saying that the idea that the House should pass huge sums of money on the nod without proper debate must be considered against the background of the way in which we normally work in the House, devoting enormous time and consideration to quite trivial issues.
Mr. hon. Friends and I strongly object to the procedure proposed, and I have spoken on this occasion because I believe that the House should take this matter very seriously indeed. Last year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) pointed out, we raised this matter and we were given some sort of promise that an opportunity would be provided for us to discuss these issues. That opportunity has not been provided, and once again we are being asked to pass a motion in precisely the terms of that which was passed last year. When I went to the Vote Office last night, I checked it. The motion is word for word the same as the one passed last year.
In these circumstances we have a right to ask, as Back Benchers, what exactly


are our powers here. Are we just rubber stamps who walk through the Lobbies to approve the expenditure of huge sums of money without debate? My hon. Friends and I wish to protest at this state of affairs. We think it quite outrageous that we should be asked to do that. It is totally wrong that we should be called upon to approve as part of a package military expenditures to which we are absolutely opposed.
In these circumstances, we feel that we have only one option open to us, which is to oppose the Prime Minister's motion presently before us. Therefore, I make no apology for having opposed it at length. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides will recognise that we have not come here today to discuss this issue lightly. We must pay heed to the opinions of the British people. They hear the heehawing and the noise at Question Time, and if they realised at the same time that we permit this sort of thing to be done, they will think it a disgrace and ask why on earth hon. Members on both sides of the House do not stand up and say something about it.
On this occasion, I thought it timely that I should make a clear statement on the issue. Although there is a certain amount of merriment in the House over this matter, I assure the House that that does not mean that my hon. Friends and I regard this as a matter that can be taken lightly. I hope that my right hon. Friend and right hon. and hon. Members next year will see to it that hon. Members who represent a sizeable section of opinion in this country have the opportunity to be heard, which is their right. That is what we are demanding today, and that is why we shall vote against the Prime Minister's motion, believing that that is the only way of making our protest clear.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since there is a small group of hon. Members who wish to debate this matter, and we have heard a lot about the motion itself, may I move, That the Question be now put?

Mr. Rooker: Further to that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I indicated earlier that I shall accept a motion, That the Question be now put, when I think it is

the right time. I said that only 10 minutes ago.

Mr. Ridley: I, too, should like to make a contribution on the subject of the Supplementary Estimates and the need for the House to be given an opportunity to debate them. It may surprise the House to know that I tabled a number of Questions asking how many Ford motor cars that were to be purchased by the Government would subsequently not be purchased as a result of sanctions. To my astonishment, these Questions were transferred to the Ministry of Defence, and I have now got the answers in today's Hansard. I asked how many—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman asked the right Questions—I say nothing about the answers—but we are debating the business motion, which has been discussed at length by the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens).

Mr. Ridley: I suggest that it is relevant, Mr. Speaker, because the Ministry of Defence is apparently to incur expenditure on purchasing more expensive motor cars than might have been available if it had purchased Ford motor cars. Presumably, the £248,547,000 is in the Supplementary Estimate for the purchase of Japanese cars at greater expense for Ministry of Defence mandarins and Service Ministers.
It is clear that there is no intention of buying military vehicles with this money. It is all for motor cars, as I understand it, and this seems to be a point which the House should debate today. I had thought that the House would debate it today. I thought that that was the substance of the debate, but, since I am not able to make my speech on the later motion, I should like to make my speech on the desirability of not pursuing policies represented by this Supplementary Estimate for the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been very helpful to me. I realise now the direction in which he is going. I remind him that we are now discussing not these Estimates and what ought or ought not to be in them but whether we accept the Prime Minister's business motion that they be put to a vote without debate.

Mr. Ridley: I should like to discuss the Estimates. That is why I rose. I should like the Government to provide an appropriate opportunity for me to discuss them, but you have made it abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker, and I entirely accept your ruling, that we may not discuss the substance of the Estimates on this occasion. It therefore seems to me to be futile to try to prevail in this debate in making the point that we should be able to discuss the Estimates on a later occasion, whereas that is the only point, as you so rightly put it, that we may make in this debate.
My worry about this Estimate relates to exactly how much of this money is going to buy expensive motor cars, as a stupid and arrogant retaliatory action against Ford, but I cannot make the point on this occasion. It would be quite out of order, and I should entirely accept your view, Mr. Speaker, if you were to rule me out of order.
My suggestion is that we pass the motion now and deal with the Estimates and then proceed to discuss the matter of substance which is the one issue that I want to raise on the defence Supplementary Estimate, but that I am precluded from discussing now by the rules of order.

Mr. Mikardo: I shall be brief and confine myself strictly to the Prime Minister's motion. One morning, two or three days ago, I was listening to the radio waiting for the cricket score from Australia when I heard the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) being interviewed. We all know that the right hon. Member takes seriously his responsibilities as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. He devotes to the functions of that office a great deal of skill and expertise.
The right hon. Gentleman argued strongly—I agreed with every word that he said—that the extent to which the House controls the expenditure of Government, or Supply, has become less and less with every year that passes.
The right hon. Gentleman's solution to this problem was, in one way ot another, to do some of the scrutiny in Committee. That was the solution that 1 understood my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) to advocate a little while ago. One right hon. Member of the House who would not go along with that idea, as we all

know, is the Leader of the House. He has always been opposed to any increase in or extension of the Select Committee system. He has always argued, with his own particular cogency, that we should do our important business on the Floor of the House. If we are properly to scrutinise expenditure, according to my right hon. Friend, the House should be able to look in detail at Estimates.

Mr. English: But we cannot.

Mr. Mikardo: If we had had a debate, which I know we cannot have, my speech would have been purely interrogatory. I had a number of questions to ask. I should be surprised if many other hon. Members did not also have questions to ask. I challenge hon. Members to say that there is a single one among them who can go through those Estimates, put his hand on his heart and say that he knows what every item means.

Mr. English: And say that he agrees with it.

Mr. Mikardo: One cannot say whether one agrees with an Estimate when one does not understand what the item means. The Estimates are drawn up by accountants. Accountants are adept at using records to disguise rather than to clarify what is taking place. These Estimates in particular are riddled with jargon. If we are to scrutinise expenditure we must understand it.
I should have liked to ask"What does this mean?" of four items. I should have liked to ask"To whom does the money go, and for what? ".
I remember in the 1951 Parliament an all-night debate on the Army Estimates. There were a number of items about which I asked the then Under-Secretary of State for War"What are they and what do they mean? ". I can remember only one of those items. It involved the salary of paper-keepers. I asked the Minister"What are paper-keepers?"There was a great deal of flurrying and to-ing and fro-ing between the Benches and the space behind Mr. Speaker's right hand. The Minister had to blabber on for three-quarters of an hours before he got the answer and told us what paper-keepers were. [HON. MEMBERS:"What are they? "]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I waited to hear the end of the story, but I still do not understand how relevant it is to the motion.

Mr. Mikardo: With respect, Mr. Speaker, it is relevant. I told the story because it is an example of an item in the accounts which Members do not understand and cannot therefore scrutinise. [HON. MEMBERS:"What are paper-keepers."' I deliberately refrain from answering that question because by doing so I would breach your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I shall tell hon. Members afterwards.
Three items in the five Estimates are Greek to me. They are written in jargon. I do not know whether it is right to spend the money that is involved, because I do not know what they mean. I am not allowed to ask what they mean. That means that hon. Members who are charged with the responsibility for scrutinising expenditure have to agree to public money being spent on something when they do not know A from a bull's foot. If that is proper parliamentary control of expenditure and proper parliamentary democracy, we shall have to do some fresh thinking.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The motion is really about the House approving the expenditure of £25,000 million without debate. That is what it comes to. One understands why that produces a certain sense of shock. Unfortunately, if we had not had this short discussion today, or if the motion were not on the Order Paper, the matter would be subject to a guillotine and be approved in the Consolidated Fund Bill next week.

Although it seems to be an enormous issue, it is the result of the procedure to

Division No. 12]
AYES
[5.20 p.m.


Alison, Michael
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Bulmer, Esmond


Anderson, Donald
Boardman, H.
Burden, F. A.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Armstrong, Ernest
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Carlisle, Mark


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Carter, Ray


Awdry, Daniel
Boyden, James (Blsh Auck)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bradford, Rev Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bates, Alt
Braine, Sir Bernard
Clegg, Walter


Belth, A. J.
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Bell, Ronald
Brittan, Leon
Concannon, Rt Hon John


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Brotherton, Michael
Cormack, Patrick


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Bryan, Sir Paul
Costain, A. P.


Benyon, W.
Buchanan, Richard
Cowans, Harry


Berry, Hon Anthony
Buck, Antony
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)


Biggs-Davison, John
Budgen, Nick
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

which we have become all too accustomed. It is a procedure to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) has been drawing attention for a long time. I certainly do not wish to take up the time of the House when an important debate is pending.

I say to the Leader of the House and to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that it is provoking the House to put down these Votes as a nominal justification for the debate that follows. We are used to nominal Votes leading to a debate on a matter of general interest, but when a motion involving £25.000 million is to be passed on the nod, the issue is brought to the surface.

By a growing convention we have abandoned financial control over Government activities. The lesson that we might learn from today's debate is that we must set up a Committee procedure to deal with these Estimates. At present the whole system is a farce. We are asked to approve this enormous expenditure on the nod in order that we may properly have a debate in the House on another important subject.

I hope that we shall get on to that subject now or soon. This matter should have focused our minds on the fact that we are engaged in an outrageous farce about the control of public expenditure. We must do something to give reality to our scrutiny of expenditure.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: Mr. Humphrey Atkins rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 106.

Crawshaw, Richard
Judd, Frank
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Crouch, David
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prior, Rt Hon James


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Kimball, Marcus
Raison, Timothy


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Deaklns, Eric
Knox, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lamont, Norman
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Doig, Peter
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Dormand, J. D.
Lawson, Nigel
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Drayson, Burnaby
Le Merchant, Spencer
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dunlop, John
Lloyd, Ian
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Dunnet, Jack
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Durant, Tony
Luard, Evan
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dykes, Hugh
Luce, Richard
Rowlands, Ted


Eadie, Alex
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Royle, Sir Anthony


Ennals, Rt Hon David
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sainsbury, Tim


Eyre, Reginald
McCrindle, Robert
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fairgrieve, Russell
McElhone, Frank
Scott, Nicholas


Faulds, Andrew
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
MacGregor, John
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Ford, Ben
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Silvester, Fred


Forman, Nigel
Maclennan, Robert
Sims, Roger


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'I'd)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fox, Marcus
Madel, David
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Mahon, Simon
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)


Freud, Clement
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfleld)


Fry, Peter
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spence, John


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Marten, Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


Ginsburg, David
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Stanley, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mates, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon David


Golding, John
Mather, Carol
Stott, Roger


Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hysiop, Robin
Stradllng Thomas, J.


Gourlay, Harry
Mayhew, Patrick
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Graham, Ted
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tapsell, Peter


Grant Anthony (Harrow C)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mills, Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gray, Hamish
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Grieve, Percy
Moate, Roger
Tinn, James


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Monro, Hector
Tomllnson, John


Grist, Ian
Montgomery, Fergus
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moonman, Eric
Trotter, Neville


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morgan, Geraint
Urwin, T. W.


Hannam, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Viggers, Peter


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Wakeham, John


Hart Rt Hon Judith
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Morrison, Rt Hon Charles (Devizes)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hayhoe Barney
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Wall, Patrick


Heseltine Michael
Mudd David
Ward, Michael


Heseltine, MichaelHicks, Robert
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Weatherill, Bernard


Hicks, Robers Hodgson, Robin
Neave Airey
Weetch, Ken


Holland, Philip
Nelson, Anthony
Wells, John


Home Robertson, John
Newton, Tony
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hordern, Peter
Nott, John
White, James (Pollok)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Onslow, Cranley
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Howell, David (Guildford)
Orbach, Maurice
Whitlock, WilliamWhitney, Raymond


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Whitney, Raymond


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Wiggin, jerryWilliams, Rt Hon Allan (Swansea W)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Richard (Worklngton)
Williams Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


James, David
Pardoe, John
winterton, Nicholas


Janner, Greville
Park, George
woodall, Alec


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'dfd)
Parkinson, Cecil
Young, David (Bolton E)


Jessel, Toby
Pendry, Tom
Younger, Hon George


John, Brynmor
Penhallgon, David



Jones, Alec (Rhondda)Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Percival, IanPerry, Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE AYES;


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Sir George Young and


Jopling, Michael
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.


NOES


Allaun, Frank
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Conlan, Bernard


Ashton, Joe
Buchan, Norman
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Corbett, Robin


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Campbell, Ian
Crawford, Douglas


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cant, R. B.
Cryer, Bob


Bldwell, Sydney
Carmichael, Nell
Dempsey, James


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dewar, Donald


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cartwright, John
Edge, Geoff


Bradley, Tom
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)







English, Michael
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Selby, Harry


Evans, Fred (Caerphllly)
Litterick, Tom
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Loyden, Eddie
Short, Mrs Rente (Wolv NE)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Silverman, Jullus


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
MacCormlck, lain
Skinner, Dennis


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
McKay, Alan (Penistone)
Spearing, Nigel


Flannery, Martin
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Spriggs, Leslie


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Madden, Max
Stoddart, David


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


George Bruce
Mikardo, Ian
Tierney, Sydney


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Torney, Tom


Grocott, Bruce
Morton, George
Tuck, Raphael


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Newens, Stanley
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Heffer, Eric S.
Noble, Mike
Watkins, David


Henderson, Douglas
Ogden, Eric
Watkinson, John


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
O'Halloran, Michael
Watt, Hamlsh


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Parry, Robert
Welsh, Andrew


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pavitt, Laurie
Wigley, Dafydd


Hunter, Adam
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Radice, Giles
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Kerr, Russell
Robinson, Geoffrey



Kilfedder, James
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rooker, J. W.
Mr. Stan Thorne and


Kinnock, Nell
Ryman,John
Mr. John Lee.


Lamond, James
Sedgemore, Brian

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is—

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There can be no point of order now. The House has given me an instruction to put the Question.

Question put accordingly:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Ser-jeant at Arms provide the hon. Member

for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) with cover for his head. There is an hon. Member seeking to raise a point of order, and his head needs to be covered.

Mr. English (seated and covered): Mr. Speaker, I should be obliged if you would simply confirm that everyone who votes in favour of this motion will be voting to preclude debate upon £23,000 million of public expenditure and that everyone who votes against it will be voting to have a debate upon that public expenditure.

The House having divided: Ayes 338, Noes 92.

Evans, John (Newton)
Luce, Richard
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Eyre, Reginald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Rhodes James, R.


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Faulds, Andrew
McAdden, sir Stephen
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McCrindle, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
McElhone, Frank
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
MacGregor, John
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Ford, Ben
McKay, Alan (Penistone)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Forman, Nigel
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Rowlands, Ted


Forrester, John
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Royle, Sir Anthony


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'l'd)
Maclennan, Robert
Sainsbury, Tim


Fox, Marcus
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Scott, Nicholas


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Madel, David
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Mahon, Simon
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fry, Peter
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marks, Kenneth
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Ginsburg, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwlch)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Silvester, Fred


Golding, John
Marten, Nell
Sims, Roger


Goodhew, Victor
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gourlay, Harry
Mates, Michael
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mather, Carol
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)


Graham, Ted
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mawby, Ray
Snape, Peter


Grant, John (Islington C)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spence, John


Gray, Hamish
Mayhew, Patrick
Stallard, A. W.


Grieve, Percy
Meacher, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Grist, Ian
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Stanley, John


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Millan, Rt Hon Robert
Stott, Roger


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stradllng Thomas, J.


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mills, Peter
Strang, Gavin


Hannam, John
Mlscampbell, Norman
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Moate, Roger
Tapsell, Peter


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Molynenux, James
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Monro, Hector
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Montgomery, Fergus
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Heseltine, Michael
Moonman, Eric
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hicks, Robert
Morgan, Geraint
Tierney, Sydney


Hodgson, Robin
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Tomlinson, John


Holland, Philip
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Townsond, Cyril D.


Home Robertson, John
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Trotter, Neville


Horam, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberivon)
Urwin, T. W.Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morrison, Rt Hon Charles (Devizes)
Viggers, Peter


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hucklield, Les
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Wakeham, John


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Mudd, David
Walker Harold (Doncaster)


Hunter, Adam
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Hurd, Douglas
Murray, Rt Han Ronald King
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Neave, Airey
Wall, Patrick


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Nelson, Anthony
Ward, Michael


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Newton, Tony
Watkins, David


James, David
Nott, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Janner, Greville
Oakes, Gordon
Weetch, Ken


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Ogden, Eric
Weitzman, David


Jessel, Toby
Onslow, Cranley
Wellbeloved, James


John, Brynmor
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wells, John


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Page, John (Harrow West)
White, James (Pollok)


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Page, Richard (Workington)
Whitlock, William


Jopling, Michael
Palmer, Arthur
Whitney, Raymond


Judd, Frank
Park, George
Wiggin, Jerry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Parkinson, Cecil
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Pattie, Geoffrey
Williams, Rt Hon Allan (Swansea W)


Kershaw, Anthony
Pendry, Tom
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Kimball, Marcus
Percival, Ian
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Perry, Ernest
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Phipps, Dr Colin
Woodall, Alec


Knox, David
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Woof, Robert


Lamborn, Harry
Price, David (Easttelgh)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Latham, Michael (Mellon)
Price, Willam (Rugby)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Lawson, Nigel
Prior, Rt Hon James
Young, Sir G. (Eallng, Acton)


Leadbltter, Ted
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Younger, Hon George


Le Merchant, Spencer
Radice, Giles



Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Raison, Timothy
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lloyd, Ian
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Mr. James Tinn and


Lofthouse, Geoffrey Luard, Evan
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Mr. Joseph Dean.







NOES


Allaun, Frank
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Ashton, Joe
Heller, Eric S.
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Henderson, Douglas
Robinson, Geoffrey


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Beith, A. J.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rooker, J. W.


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bidwell, Sydney
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Ryman, John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Sedgemore, Brian


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Selby, Harry


Buchan, Norman
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Kelley, Richard
Silverman, Julius


Carmichael, Neil
Kilfedder, James
Skinner, Dennis


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Kinnock, Neil
Sprigs, Leslie


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lamond, James
Steel, Rt Hon David


Corbett, Robin
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Stoddart, David


Crawford, Douglas
Litterick, Tom
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Cryer, Bob
Loyden, Eddie
Torney, Tom


Dewar, Donald
MacCormlck, lain
Tuck, Raphael


Edge, Geoff
Madden, Max
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Watklnson, John


English, Michael
Mikardo,Ian
Watt, Hamish


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Welsh, Andrew


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Morton, George
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Newens, Stanley
Wigley, Dafydd


Femyhough, Rt Hon E.
Orbach, Maurice
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Flannery, Martin
Pardoe, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Parry, Robert
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Freud, Clement
Pavitt, Laurie



George Bruce
Penhaligon, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Mr. Stan Thorne and


Grocott, Bruce
Richardson, Miss Jo
Mr. John Lee.

Question accordingly agreed to.


Ordered,


That, at this day's sitting, Mr Speaker shall put forthwith any Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Robert Sheldon relating to Civil and Defence Estimates as soon as the House has entered upon the business of Supply.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1979–80 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)

Mr. Ron Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that it will have to be taken after I have put these Questions, because the House has just decided that I must put them forthwith.

Division No. 14]
AYES
[5.48 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Anderson, Donald
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Meacher, Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Ford, Ben
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Ashley, Jack
Forrester, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Ashton, Joe
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Moonman, Eric


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Morgan, Geraint


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bean, R. E.
Ginsburg, David
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Golding, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Gourlay, Harry
Morton, George


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Graham, Ted
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronad King


Bradley, Tom
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oakes, Gordon


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Ogden, Eric


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
O'Halloran, Michael


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Home Robertson, John
Park, George


Buchanan, Richard
Horam, John
Pavitt, Laurie


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Pendry, Tom


Campbell, Ian
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Perry, Ernest


Cant, R. B.
Huckfleld, Les
Phlpps, Dr Colin


Carter, Ray
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Price, Willam (Rugby)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hunter, Adam
Radice, Giles


Cartwrlght, John
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Janner, Greville
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cohen, Stanley
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Coleman, Donald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Concannon, Rt Hon John
John, Brynmor
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cowans, Harry
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rowlands, Ted


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Sandelson, Neville


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sedgemore, Brian


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Cryer, Bob
Judd, Frank
Silkln, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whlteh)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwlch)


Davidson, Arthur
Lamborn, Harry
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Leadbltter, Ted
Snape, Peter


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Litterick, Tom
Spearing, Nigel


Deakins, Eric
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Stallard, A. W.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Luard, Evan
Stoddart, David


Dempsey, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stott, Roger


Dewar, Donald
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dlckson
Strang, Gavin


Doig, Peter
McElhone, Frank
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Dormand, J. D.
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Summersklll, Hon Dr Shirley


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McKay, Alan (Penistone)
Taylor, Mrs Arm (Bolton W)


Duffy, A. E. P.
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Dunnet, Jack
Maclennan, Robert
Tierney, Sydney


Eadle, Alex
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Tinn, James


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Madden, Max
Tomlinson, John


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Mahon, Simon
Urwln, T. W.


Evans, John (Newton)
Mailalieu, J. P. W.
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Ewlng, Harry (Stirling)
Marks, Kenneth
Walnwrlght, Edwin (Dearne V)


Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Motion made, and Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £17,470,584,900, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1980, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 55.—[Mr. Robert Sheldon.]

put forthwith, pursuant to Order this day:—

Mr. Newens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There can be no point of order.

The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 52.

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
White, James (Pollok)
Woof, Robert


Ward, Michael
Whltlock, William
Wrlgglesworth, Ian


Watkins, David
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Young, David (Bolton E)


Watklnson, John
Williams, Rt Hon Allan (Swansea W)



Weetch, Ken
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Weitzman, David
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Mr. Alf Bates and


Wellbeloved, James
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrlngton)
Mr. Thomas Cox


White, Frank R. (Bury)
Woodall, Alec



NOES



Freud, Clement
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
George Bruce
Rooker, J. W.


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Beith, A. J.
Grocott, Bruce
Ryman, John


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Selby, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Skinner, Dennis


Buchan, Norman
Kelley, Richard
Sprlggs, Leslie


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Kilfedder, James
Steel, Rt Hon David


Carmichael, Neil
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Klnnock, Neil
Tomney, Frank


Corbett, Robin
Lamond, James
Tuck, Raphael


Edge, Geofl
Loyden, Eddie
Wainwrlght, Richard (Colne V)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


English, Michael
Pardoe, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Evans, Fred (Cserphiliy)
Parry, Robert



Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Penhallgon, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Flannery, Martin
Richardson, Miss Jo
Mr. Ron Thomas and


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Mr. John Lee

Question accordingly agreed to.

CIVIL ESTIMATES (CLASS XIII A), 1979–80 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)

Motion made, and Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,726,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for House of Commons: Admini-

Division No. 15]
AYES
[6.03 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Allaun, Frank
Crawshaw, Richard
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Anderson, Donald
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Armstrong, Ernest
Davidson, Arthur
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Ashley, Jack
Davles, Rt Hon Denzil
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Home Robertson, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Horam, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Deakins, Eric
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Bates, Alt
Dempsey, James
Huckfield, Les


Bean, R. E.
Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Dolg, Peter
Hunter, Adam


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Dormand, J. D.
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Janner, Grevllle


Boardman, H.
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Dunnet, Jack
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Eadia, Alex
John, Brynmor


Bradley, Tom
Ennals, Rt Hon David 
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Evans, John (Newton)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ewlng, Harry (Stirling)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Faulds, Andrew
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Buchanan, Richard
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Judd, Frank


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael 
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald 


Campbell, Ian
Ford, Ben
Kelley, Richard


Cant, R. B.
Forrester, John
Lamborn, Harry


Carmichael, Nell
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Carter, Ray
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Luard, Evan


Cartwright, John
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Cohen, Stanley
Golding, John
McElhone, Frank


Coleman, Donald
Gould, Bryan
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Concannon, Rt Hon John
Gourlay, Harry
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Conlan, Bernard
Grant, George (Morpeth)
MacKenzle, Rt Hon Gregor


Cowans, Harry
Grant, John (Islington C)
Maclennan, Robert


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Grocott, Bruce
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

stration for the year ending on 31st March 1980, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 59.—[Mr. Robert Sheldon.]

put forthwith, pursuant to Order this day:—

The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 57.

Madden, Max
Phipps, Dr Colin
Tierney, Sydney


Magee, Bryan
Price, C. (Lewlsham W)
Tilley, John


Mahon, Simon
Price, Willam (Rugby)
Tomlinson, John


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Radice, Giles
Urwin, T. W.


Marks, Kenneth
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wainwrlght, Edwin (Dearne V)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Meacher, Michael
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Ward, Michael


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Rowlands, Ted
Watkins, David


Millan, Rt Hon Robert
Sandelson, Neville
Watklnson, John


Moonman, Eric
Sedgemore, Brian
Weetch, Ken


Morgan, Geraint
Selby, Harry
Weitzman, David


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
White, James (Pollok)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Whitlock, William


Morton, George
Silkln, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Snape, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Allan (Swansea W)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Oakes, Gordon
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Woodall, Alec


Ogden, Eric
Stoddart, David
Woof, Robert


O'Halloran, Michael
Stott, Roger
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Strang, Gavin
Young, David (Bolton E)


Palmer, Arthur
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.



Park, George
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pavitt, Laurie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Mr. Ted Graham and


Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Mr. James Tinn.


Perry, Ernest




NOES


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Rooker, J. W.


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Beith, A. J.
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Ryman, John


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Bldwell, Sydney
Kerr, Russell
Skinner, Dennis


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Kifedder, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon David


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Kinnock, Neil
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lamond, James
Tuck, Raphael


Corbett, Robin
Litterick, Tom
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Crawford, Douglas
Loyden, Eddie
Welsh, Andrew


Cryer, Bob
Maynard, Miss Joan
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Edge, Geoff
Newens, Stanley
Wigley, Dafydd


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Pardoe, John
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


English, Michael
Parry, Robert
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Penhallgon, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Richardson, Miss Jo



Flannery, Martin
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekln)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Mr. John Lee and


Freud, Clement
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Mr. Ron Thomas.


George Bruce

Question accordingly agreed to.

CIVIL SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1978–79

Motion made, and Question,
That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,860,115,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of pay-

Division No. 16]
AYES
[6.19 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Allaun, Frank
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Campbell, Ian


Anderson, Donald
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cant, R. B.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Boardman, H.
Carter, Ray


Armstrong, Ernest
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cartwright, John


Ashley, Jack
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Ashton, Joe
Boyden James (Bish Auck)
Cohen, Stanley


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Bradley, Tom
Coleman, Donald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Concannon, Rt Hon John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Conlan, Bernard


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Bates, Alt
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Crawshaw, Richard


Craigen, Jim (Maryhlll)
Buchanan, Richard
Bean, R. E.

ment during the year ending on 31st March 1979 for expenditure on Civil Services, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 53.— [Mr. Robert Sheldon.]

put forthwith, pursuant to Order this day,:—

The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 46.

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cryer, Bob
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Judd, Frank
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rowlands, Ted


Deakins, Eric
Lamborn, Harry
Sandelson, Neville


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sedgemore, Brian


Dempsey, James
Litterick, Tom
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)


Dewar, Donald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Doig, Peter
Loyden, Eddie
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dormand, J. D.
Luard, Evan
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Sllkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Skinner, Dennis


Dunnet, Jack
McElhone, Frank
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)


Eadie, Alex
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Snape, Peter


Ennals, Rt Hon David
McKay, Alan (Penistone)
Spearing, Nigel


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Stallard, A. W.


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Maclennan, Robert
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Faulds, Andrew
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stoddart, David


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Madden, Max
Stott, Roger


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Magee, Bryan
Strang, Gavin


Ford, Ben
Mahon, Simon
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Forman, Nigel
Mallalleu, J. P. W.
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Forrester, John
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tierney, Sydney


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tilley, John


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Tinn, James


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tomlinson, John


Golding, John
Meacner, Michael
Urwln, T. W.


Gould, Bryan
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Graham, Ted
Moonman, Eric
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morgan, Geralnt
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Ward, Michael


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Watkins, David


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Watkinson, John


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Morton, George
Weetch, Ken


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Weltzman, David


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Wellbeloved, James


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
White, James (Pollok)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Oakes, Gordon
Whitlock, William


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
O'Halloran, Michael
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Home Robertson, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Rt Hon Allan (Swansea W,)


Horam, John
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Park, George
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Pavitt, Laurie
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Huckfield, Les
Pendry, Tom
Woodall, Alec


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Perry, Ernest
Woof, Robert


Hunter, Adam
Phipps, Dr Colin
Wrigglesworlh, ian


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Price, C. (Lewlsham W)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Janner, Greville
Price, Willam (Rugby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Radice, Giles



Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Mrs. Ann Taylor and Mr. John Eva


NOES


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Selby, Harry


Beiih, A. J.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Kelley, Richard
Sprlggs, Leslie


Bidwell, Sydney
Kilfedder, James
Steel, Rt Hon David


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Thome, Stan (Preston South)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Kinnock, Neil
Torney, Tom


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lamond, James
Tuck, Raphael


Corbett, Robin
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Edge, Geoff
Newens, Stanley
White, Frank R. (Bury)


English, Michael
Pardoe, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Evans, Fred (Caerphily)
Parry, Robert
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Penhallgon, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Flannery, Martin
Richardson, Miss Jo



Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekln)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Freud, Clement
Rooker, J. W.
Mr. John Lee and Mr. Ron Thomas.


George Bruce
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)



Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Ryman, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

DEFENCE ESTIMATES, 1979–80 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)

Motion made, and Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,155,066,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards

Division No. 17
AYES
[6.35 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Alison, Michael
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Huckfleld, Les


Anderson, Donald
Davidson, Arthur
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Hunter, Adam


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hurd, Douglas


Ashley, Jack
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Deakins, Eric
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Awdry, Daniel
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
James, David


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dempsey, James
Janner, Greville


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dewar, Donald
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)


Bates, Alf
Doig, Peter
Jessel, Toby


Bean, R. E.
Dormand, J. D.
John, Brynmor


Bell Ronald
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Bennett Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Drayson, Burnaby
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Benyon, W.
Dulfy, A. E. P.
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Dunlop, John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Bitten, John
Dunnet, Jack
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Biggs-Davison, John
Durant, Tony
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Eadie, Alex
Jopling, Michael


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Judd, FranK


Boardman, H.
Evans, John (Newton)
Kaufman. Rt Hon Gerald


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Eyre, Reginald
Kilfedder, James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fairgrieve, Russell
Kimball, Marcus


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Faulds, Andrew
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Knignt, Mrs Jill


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Knox, David


Bradford, Rev Robert
Ford, Ben
Lamborn, Harry


Bradley, Tom
Forrester, John
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'I'd)
Lawson, Nigel


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fox, Marcus
Le Marchant, Spencer


Brittan, Leon
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Brotherton, Michael
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Fry, Peter
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Gardiner, George (Relgate)
Luard, Evan


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Luce, Richard


Bryan, Sir Paul
George Bruce
Lyons Edward (Bradford W)


Buchanan, Richard
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Buck, Antony
Glyn, Dr Alan
McCrindle, Robert


Budgen, Nick
Golding, John
McElhone, Frank


Bulmer, Esmond
Goodhew, Victor
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gould, Bryan
MacGregor, John


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Gourlay, Harry
McKay, Alan (Penistone)


Campbell, Ian
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Cant, R. B.
Graham, Ted
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Carlisle, Mark
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Maclennan, Robert


Carter, Ray
Grant, John (Islington C)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gray, Hamish
Mcmillian, Tom (Glasgow C)


Cartwright, John
Grieve, Percy
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Grist, Ian
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Channon, Paul
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Madel, David 


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Magee, Bryan


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclifte)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mahon Simon


Clegg, Walter
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Marks, Kenneth


Cohen, Stanley
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Coleman, Donald
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Concannon, Rt Hon John
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Marten, Nell


Conlan, Bernard
Hayhoe, Barney
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cormack, Patrick
Hicks, Robert
Mather, Carol


Costain, A. P.
Hodgson, Robin
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Cowans, Harry
Holland, Philip
Mawby, Ray


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Home Robertson, John
Maxwell-?Hyslop, Robin


Crawshaw, Richard
Horam, John
Mayhew, Patrick


Crouch, David
Hordern, Peter
Meacher, Michael


Crowder, F. P.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Meyer, Sir Anthony

defraying the charges for Defence Services for the year ending on 31st March 1980, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 54.—[Mr. Robert Sheldon.]

put forthwith, pursuant to Order this day: —

The House divided: Ayes 342, Noes

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Rhodes James, R.
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Mills, Peter
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tierney, Sydney


Miscampbell, Norman
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Tilley, John


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tinn, James


Molyneaux, James
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Tomlinson, John


Monro, Hector
Robinson, Geoffrey
Trotter, Neville


Montgomery, Fergus
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Urwin, T. W.


Morgan, Geraint
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Rowlands, Ted
Viggers, Peter


Morris, Alfred (Wythenthawe)
Sainsbury, Tim
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wakeham, John


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Sandelson, Neville
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Scott, Nicholas
Wall, Patrick


Morrison, Rt Hon Charles (Devizes)
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)
Ward, Michael


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Watkins, David


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Watkinson, John


Mudd, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Weatherill, Bernard


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Shepherd, Colin
Weetch, Ken


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Shersby, Michael
Weltzman, David


Neave, Airey
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wellbeloved, James


Nott, John
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wells, John


Oakes, Gordon
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwlch)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


O'Halloran, Michael
Sims, Roger
White, James (Pollok)


Onslow, Cranley
Skeet, T. H. H.
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Whitlock, William


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Snap, Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Page, Richard (Workington)
Spearing, Nigel
Wiggin, Jerry


Palmer, Arthur
Spence, John
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Park, George
Sprigs, Leslie
Williams, Rt Hon Allan (Swansea W)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Pendry, Tom
Stanbrook, Ivor
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Perry, Ernest
Stanley, John
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Winterton, Nicholas


Phipps, Dr Colin
Stoddart, David
Woodall, Alec


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Stott, Roger
Woof, Robert


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Stradling Thomas, J.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Price, Willam (Rugby)
Strang, Gavin
Young, David (Bolton E)


Prior, Rt Hon James
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Younger, Hon George


Radlce, Giles
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)



Raison, Timothy
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Tebblt, Norman
Mr. Jim Marshall and


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Thomas Cox.


Rees-Davies, W. R.




NOES


Ashton, Joe
Grocott, Bruce
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Hayman, Mrs Helena
Richardson, Miss Jo


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Beith, A. J.
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rooker, J. W.


Bidwell, Sydney
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Buchan, Norman
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ryman, John


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sedgemore, Brian


Carmichael, Nell
Kelley, Richard
Selby, Harry


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Kilroy-Sllk, Robert
Short, Mrs Ren&amp;ax00E9;e (Wolv NE)


Corbett, Robin
Kinnock, Nell
Silverman, Julius


Cryer, Bob
Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Edge, Geoff
Lee, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Litterick, Tom
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


English, Michael
Madden, Max
Torney, Tom


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tuck, Raphael


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mikardo, Ian 
Wainwright, Richard (Coins V)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Moonman, Eric 
Wigley, Dafydd


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Morton, George..,.'
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Flannery, Martin
Newens, Stanley 
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekln)
Pardoe, John 



Freud, Clement
Parry, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Stan Thorne and


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Penhallgon, David
Mr. Frank Allaun.

Question accordingly agreed to.

DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1978–79

Motion made, and Question,
That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £248,547,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of pay-

Division No. 0001
AYES
[6.51 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Hunter, Adam


Anderson, Donald
Davidson, Arthur
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Ashley, Jack
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
James, David


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Deakins, Eric
Janner, Greville


Awdry, Daniel
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dempsey, James
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dewar, Donald
Jessel, Toby


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Dodsworlh, Geoffrey
John, Brynmor


Bates, Alf
Doig, Peter
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Bean, R. E.
Dormand, J. D.
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Bell, Ronald
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Drayson, Burnaby
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Benyon, W.
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Dunlop, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bitten, John
Dunnet, Jack
Jopling, Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Durant, Tony
Judd, Frank


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Eadie, Alex
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Kilfedder, James


Boardman, H.
Evans, John (Newton)
Kimball, Marcus


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Eyre, Reginald
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fairgrieve, Russell
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Faulds, Andrew
Knight, Mrs Jill


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Knox, David


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lamborn, Harry


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Ford, Ben
Le Marchant, Spencer


Bradley, Tom
Forrester, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C I'd)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fox, Marcus
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Britlan, Leon
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Luard, Evan


Brotherton, Michael
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Fry, Peter
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
McCrindle, Robert


Bryan, Sir Paul
George Bruce
McElhone, Frank


Buchanan, Richard
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
MacGregor, John


Buck, Antony
Glyn, Dr Alan
McKay, Alan (Penistone)


Budgen, Nick
Golding, John
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Bulmer, Esmond
Goodhew, Victor
Maclennan, Robert


Burden, F. A.
Gould, Bryan
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Butler, Adam (Bosworlh)
Gourlay, Harry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Campbell, Ian
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McNalr-Wilson, p. (New Forest)


Cant, R. B.
Grant, John (Islington C)
Madel, David


Carlisle, Mark
Gray, Hamish
Magee, Bryan


Carter, Ray
Grieve, Percy
Mahon, Simon


Cartwright, John
Grist, Ian
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marks, Kenneth


Channon, Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Clegg, Walter
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Marten, Neil


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cohen, Stanley
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Mather, Carol


Coleman, Donald
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Concannon, Rt Hon John
Hayhoe, Barney
Mawby, Ray


Conlan, Bernard
Heseltine, Michael
Maxwell-Hysiop, Robin


Cope, John
Hicks, Robert
Meacher, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Hodgson, Robin
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Costain, A. P.
Holland, Philip
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cowans, Harry
Home Robertson, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Horam, John
Mills, Peter


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Hordern, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Howell, David (Gulldford)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Crawshaw, Richard
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Molyneaux, James


Crowder, F. P.
Huckfield, Les
Monro, Hector


Crowthar, Stan (Rotherham)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Montgomery, Fergus

ment during the year ending on 31st March 1979 for expenditure on Defence Services, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 52. —[Mr. Robert Sheldon.]

put forthwith, pursuant to Order this day:—

The House divided: Ayes 335, Noes 69.

Moonman, Eric
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Morgan, Geralnt
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tierney, Sydney


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Tinn, James


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Tomlinson, John


Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Trotter, Neville


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Urwin, T. W.


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Rowlands, Ted
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Morrison, Rt Hon Charles (Oevlzes)
Sainsbury, Tim
Viggers, Peter


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Sandelson, Neville
Wakeham, John


Mudd, David
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wall, Patrick


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Ward, Michael


Neave, Airey
Sheldon, Rl Hon Robert
Watkins, David


Nott, John
Shepherd, Colin
Watkinson, John


Oakes, Gordon
Shersby, Michael
Weatherill, Bernard


O'Halloran, Michael
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Weetch, Ken


Onslow, Cranley
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Weltzman, David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wellbeloved, James


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Sims, Roger
Wells, John


Palmer, Arthur
Skeet, T. H. H.
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Park, George
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
White, James (Pollok)


Parker, John
Snape, Peter
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Parkinson, Cecil
Spearing, Nigel
Whitlock, William


Pattle, Geoffrey
Spence, John
Whitney, Raymond


Pendry, Tom
Spriggs, Leslie
Wiggin, Jerry


Perry, Ernest
Sproat, lain
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Phipps, Dr Colin
Stanbrook, Ivor
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Stanley, John
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Winterton, Nicholas


Price, Willam (Rugby)
Stoddart, David
Woodall, Alec


Prior, Rt Hon James
Stott, Roger
Woof, Robert


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Stradling Thomas, J.
Wrigglesworlh, Ian


Radice, Giles
Strang, Gavin
Young, David (Bolton E)


Raison, Timothy
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Younger, Hon George


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)



Rhodes James, R.
Tebblt, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rifkind, Malcolm
Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Ted Graham and


Roberts. Albert (Normanton)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Mr. Joseph Dean.


NOES


Allaun, Frank
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Pavitt, Laurie


Ashton, Joe
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Penhallgon, David


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Grocott, Bruce
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Hayman, Mrs Helena
Richardson, Miss Jo


Beith, A. J.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rooker, J. W.


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Ryman, John


Carmichael, Neil
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Sedgemore, Brian


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Selby, Harry


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Kelley, Richard
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Corbett, Robin
Kinnock, Nell
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cryer, Bob
Lamond, James
Torney, Tom


Edge, Geoff
Lee, John
Tuck, Raphael


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp;amp Scun)
Litterick, Tom
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


English, Michael
Loyden, Eddie
Wigley, Dafydd


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mlkardo, Ian
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Morton, George



Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Newens, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Flannery, Martin
Pardoe, John
Mr. Stan Thorne and


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Parry, Robert
Mr. Ron Thomas.


Freud. Clement

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Bill to be brought in—

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take a point of order when I have completed the business, following the long-established tradition under which it must be completed.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions relating to Civil Estimates, 1979–80 (Vote on Account), Civil Estimates (Class XIII A), 1979–80 (Vote on Account), Civil Supplementary Estimates, 1978–79, Defence Estimates, 1979–80 (Vote on Account), Defence Supplementary Estimates 1978–79, by the


Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Joel Barnett, Mr. Denzil Davies, and Mr. Robert Sheldon.

CONSOLIDATED FUND

Mr Robert Sheldon accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1978 and 1979; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During our debate on the Estimates I specifically asked you about a Government reply to our discussion. You were kind enough to say that should the Minister wish to catch your eye you would give him the chance so to do. I am sure you will agree that many important points were raised in that debate, but unfortunately the Opposition Chief Whip blundered into the House and broke up our democratic discussion.
I seek clarification. The general convention of the House, which you, Mr. Speaker, enforce with rigorous fairness, is that before a closure motion is accepted two hours of debate must elapse. In those circumstances, with no Government reply to our debate, it was disturbing for us to discover that less than one and a quarter hours had been allowed for the debate.
Is it possible for you to allow the Minister to reply now, since you indicated that you would give him an opportunity to do so, and I understand that he was most willing to reply? If it is not possible for him to reply, that demonstrates the urgency and importance of the point we made earlier that these Estimates should not be adopted without proper scrutiny.
I shall be pleased if you will give the Minister an opportunity to address the House, because he no doubt has a great deal of valuable information to divulge.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I intend to take serious, not frivolous, points of order. Today is a Supply Day. By long tradition, those who table a motion for debate are entitled to their debate.
There is no stipulation as to the time that should be allowed before Mr. Speaker accepts a closure motion. I had already twice declined to accept such a motion before eventually accepting it.

Mr. Madden: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There can be nothing further to raise on that point of order. I have answered it. I had given the matter consideration, and it was completely within my discretion whether to accept the closure.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is confusing to the public at large if, on a Supply Day, when the business is determined by the Opposition, the motion that precedes it is in the name of the Prime Minister. We here understand why that should be so—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come quickly to his point of order. I do not want to hear debating points now.

Mr. English: Will you in future, as a matter of order, Mr. Speaker, rule that on Supply Days, which are the responsibility of the Opposition, all motions tabled should be in the name of the Opposition?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) knows that I can make no such ruling.

Mr. Thorne: Further to not the last point of order, but the one that preceded it—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has been dealt with, and I gave my reply. It was within my complete discretion to decide when to accept the closure.

Mr. Thorne: On a fresh point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises from your comments about the right of the Opposition to debate Supply motions. I recall that when Labour Members were anxious to debate the Employment Protection Bill on a Friday and to ensure that it became law, they were prevented from doing so because closure motions, designed to speed up the progress of the Bill, were not accepted by the Chair because insufficient time had elapsed in debate in accordance with the established practice. We have


broken with that practice today, and I regret—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has been here long enough to know that different considerations apply on a Friday when Private Members' business is being discussed.

Mr. Rooker: On a fresh point of order, Mr. Speaker. You referred earlier to the long traditions of the House. It is those traditions that the public outside do not understand. They are some aspects that some of us have been sent here to change. How can I, as I am unable, I understand, to raise a debate under Standing Order No. 9 on proceedings that have taken place here today, explain to the public why things happened today as they have done? How do we explain why £23 billion of public expenditure went through on the nod—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is renewing the earlier argument. How he explains all that to the public is a matter for him, but no doubt if he is as eloquent outside as he is in the House, he will do it well.

Mr. Rooker: With respect, Mr. Speaker, it was within your control to allow us to have a debate—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. He is not allowed to challenge my ruling except by Notice of Motion on the Order Paper. He is entitled to pursue that course if he wishes to say that I accepted the closure too soon.

Mr. Newens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does not the business that we have been discussing today come under the heading of Supply, and is it not therefore legitimate business for the House to discuss? We have been discussing the motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which should take precedence over any other business. If that is so, and as we have put forward a number of arguments on the motion, are we not entitled at some point to a ministerial reply? We understand that it is not possible now for us to have a reply from a Minister, and I personally feel that that is unfortunate. We realise that we must accept your ruling—

Several Hon. Members: Is this a point of order?

Mr. Cryer: This is the rock of the constitution.

Mr. Newens: May we be guided on the question when we shall have the opportunity of eceiving a Government reply, and also when we may make our position clear about the Consolidated Fund Bill and other issues?

Mrs. Wise: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister does not get an opportunity to reply, might not the conclusion be drawn that he is reluctant to speak? Would not that be unfortunate for us all?

Mr. Madden: May I raise a fresh point of order, Mr. Speaker? I am sorry to detain you and the House, but I have been endeavouring to raise this point of order since the business motion was put. Unfortunately, at that time there was considerable competition for your eye. On Tuesday, at column 1,225, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) raised a point of order about the picketing of this House by the National Union of Journalists. At that time on Tuesday—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he should have raised that matter this afternoon.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must abide by some rules in this House. As I was saying, the hon. Gentleman knows that it was open to him this afternoon at the end of Question Time, when somebody else raised a point of order, to deal with the matter. I do not want to deal with the subject of picketing now, because it has nothing to do with this issue.

Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was on my feet, together with the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), seeking to raise a point of order at the time you called him. We then entered upon the debate on the motion and subsequently took the votes on the Estimates. I sought to raise my point of order at that time, but did not catch your eye.

Mr. Speaker: I must rule that it is not possible to raise that matter now.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are in great need of your assistance, and of the help of both the


Leader of the House and the Shadow Leader. I am glad to see that one of them is present.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Would the hon. Gentleman mind saying which one?

Mr. English: The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is so recent a Shadow that I have not necessarily noticed his presence. This is a serious point. Nobody wishes to deprive the Opposition of their due democratic right to discuss matters on a Supply Day. However, we wish to abolish a system under which the Opposition, who do not wish to have £23 billion of public expenditure discussed, have to pray in aid the Prime Minister to move a motion.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. English: Furthermore—

Division No. 19]
AYES
[7.24 p.m.



Lamond, James




Selby, Harry




TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Ron Thomas and




Mr. John Lee.



NOES


Armstrong, Ernest
Cryer, Bob
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Ashley, Jack
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Ashton, Joe
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Dempsey, James
Haselhurst, Alan


Awdry, Daniel
Dewar, Donald
Hayhoe, Barney


Bates, Alf
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Beith, A. J.
Doig, Peter
Henderson, Douglas


Bell, Ronald
Dormand, J. D.
Higgins, Terence L.


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Drayson, Burnaby
Hodgson, Robin


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Holland, Philip


Benyon, W.
Dunnet, Jack
Home Robertson, John


Berry, Hon Anthony
Durant, Tony
Horam, John


Biggs-Davison, John
English, Michael
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Boardman, H.
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Ford, Ben
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Forrester, John
Hunter, Adam


Bradford, Rev Robert
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bradley, Tom
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'I'd)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Brittan, Leon
Fox, Marcus
James, David


Brotherton, Michael
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Freud, Clement
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fry, Peter
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Buck, Antony
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Budgen, Nick
George Bruce
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Burden, F. A.
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Glyn, Dr Alan
Kelley, Richard


Campbell, Ian
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Kilfedder, James


Cant, R. B.
Goodhew, Victor
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Gourlay, Harry
Kimball, Marcus


Coleman, Donald
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Cormack, Patrick
Graham, Ted
Knight, Mrs Jill


Costain, A. P.
Grant Anthony (Harrow C)
Lamborn, Harry


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Grist, Ian
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Caigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Grocott, Bruce
Loyden, Eddie


Cronin, John
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat when I stand up. I believe that the time has come to stop points of order because, clearly, there have been frivolous points of order.[HON. MEMBERS:"No."] In my judgment—and if the House does not like it, it knows what to do—that has been the case.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: As he is on his feet, I shall hear Mr. John Lee.

Mr. John Lee: I beg to move, That Strangers do withdraw.

Notice being taken that Strangers were present, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 115 (Withdrawal of Strangers from House), put forthwith the Question, That Strangers do withdraw: —

The House divided: Ayes 2, Noes 223.

McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pardoe, John
Stanley, John


McCrindle, Robert
Parker, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


McElhone, Frank
Pendry, Tom
Stradling Thomas, J.


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Penhallgon, David
Swain, Thomas


MacGregor, John
Perry, Ernest
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Maclennan, Robert
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Tebbit, Norman


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Temple-Morris, Peter


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Madel, David
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Tomlinson, John


Magee, Bryan
Richardson, Miss Jo
Torney, Tom


Mahon, Simon
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Trotter, Neville


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Tuck, Raphael


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Mather, Carol
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Viggers, Peter


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Robinson, Geoffrey
Wakeham, John


Maynard, Miss Joan
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Ward, Michael


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Weatherill, Bernard


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Rooker, J. W.
Weetch, Ken


Mills, Peter
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Weltzman, David


Mlscampbell, Norman
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Molyneauv, James
Salnsbury, Tim
White, James (Pollok)


Montgomery, Fergus
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Sandelson, Neville
Whitlock, William


Morgan, Geraint
Sedgemore, Brian
Wigley, Dafydd


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Mudd, David
Shepherd, Colin
Winterton, Nicholas


Neave, Airey
Shersby, Michael
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Noble, Mike
Sims, Roger
Woof, Robert


Nott, John
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


O'Halloran, Michael
Skinner, Dennis



Onslow, Cranley
Spence, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Mr. James Tinn and


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Stallard, A. W.
Mr. Peter Snape


Palmer, Arthur
Stanbrook, Ivor

Question accordingly negatived

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you have rightly said, the Opposition have their rights on a Supply Day, which might have been frustrated by the Government having lost control of a large section of their own party. In these circumstances, may I ask the Leader of the House to tell the House what he intends to do to give us time next week to debate this subject, which is vital to hundreds of thousands of workers, and because of the issues of freedom involved, which are of importance for every citizen in this country?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The question that the hon. Gentleman has put to me is, of course, important and I should like time to consider it. I have had only a moment for consideration, and I must tell him that I do not accept the prelude to his remarks, because my hon. Friends who raised the matter earlier—it was on the Order Paper —dealt with it as they were entitled.
Moreover, it was not a debate in which only my hon. Friends participated. Several hon. Members from the Opposition Benches also took part. Therefore, the matter being on the Order Paper as it was, I cannot accept that my hon. Friends were not entitled to do what the rules of the House permit them to do. Whether I would desire them to do it is another question altogether, but hon. Members on the Opposition Benches must learn that Members in all parts of the House have their rights according to the normal orders of the House of Commons. If any of my hon. Friends had been out of order, I am sure that you would have called them to order, Mr. Speaker, but that was not the case.
I say in response to the hon. Gentleman that I shall certainly consider what he has said, but I suggest that the House should now proceed with the matter on the Order Paper. I fully accept that it would be impossible to reach a proper conclusion by 10 o'clock, and therefore I suggest that we initiate the debate now. I agree that we cannot reach a conclusion, but we can have

further discussions on how we might proceed later.
I believe that it would be quite wrong to respond to the hon. Gentleman's request by saying that I accept it immediately. I am entitled to consider it. In the meantime I suggest that the House should proceed with the matter on the Order Paper. I fully accept that we cannot reach a conclusion on the matter, but I should like time to consider the proposition that the hon. Gentleman put to me a minute or two ago. That was the first I had heard of it, and I think it perfectly reasonable that I should have time for consideration.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. All of us in this place are anxious that the House should not be brought into disrepute. The Lord President has suggested that the debate be initiated this evening. If the House is in fact allowed to do so, the Opposition would be happy to follow that course provided that we have an opportunity this evening not only to debate the matter but to vote in the Division Lobbies.

Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question whether a vote shall take place after a certain period is not for the hon. Gentleman to decide. It is a question for Mr. Speaker to decide. I suggest to the House—I fully understand that the feelings of many hon. Members, after the discussions that we have had, have run high on these questions—that it is proper that the House should take some time to consider the matter. In my opinion—others may disagree—on a matter of this significance, if we started the debate now it would be improper to reach a conclusion at 10 o'clock. That is my view. I believe that there should be a longer period than that. But I do not see any difficulty in starting the debate now, and I am quite prepared to consider the matter put to me by the hon. Gentleman.
I am not prepared, at a moment's notice, to give a response without considering the other implications, such as those for the business for next week. We have all these matters to consider, and I am asked by the hon. Gentleman to give an off-the-cuff reply at a minute's notice. I do not think that that is a reasonable way for the House to proceed.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Opposition are perfectly happy to follow the suggestion of the Lord President that the debate be initiated, provided that we can have some indication from the Chair that we shall be able to reach a conclusion this evening. If you find it impossible, Mr. Speaker, to give such an indication, we must ask the Lord President for a full day's debate next week on this vital issue.

Mr. Foot: I am prepared to consider representations from the Opposition. What I am suggesting is that we should start the debate now and that we should continue with the business on the Order Paper as it was agreed. Indeed, the order of business today was agreed by the Opposition as well as by us. I suggest that we continue on that basis. We would then have time to consider what should be the next step. I certainly agree that it would not be proper to try to bring the debate to a close at 10 o'clock, and that also, in my view, has to be taken into account. I think that we should have time to consider these matters and, in order that we may do so, I think it right that the debate should now be initiated.

Mr. David Steel: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. is not the difficulty in which the House finds itself that there are two groups of hon. Members with quite legitimate interests to pursue, namely, those who feel that it was wrong to pass such large sums of money on the nod and who have legitimately used the procedures of the House to express their displeasure, and, on the other hand, those on the Opposition Benches who have thereby lost their right to a full Supply Day?
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it really cannot make sense to follow the course suggested by the Leader of the House, namely, that we should begin a debate not knowing when it might end. Surely, that is quite unreasonable. Nor, with respect to the Shadow Leader of the House, do I think that it can make sense to have a decision of this magnitude after a debate of two and a quarter hours, when plainly there are hon. Members—I am not one of them—who represent constituencies vitally affected by these matters. I am certainly hoping to catch your eye. Mr. Speaker, and I know that

I have certain privileges in that respect, but I am seeking to protect the rights of those who have constituency interests, of whom, as I say, I am not one.
I do not think that either course is sensible. I feel that we must accept that, sadly, we have lost today and a lesson must be learnt for the future as to the procedure of tabling these motions on a day such as this, and the Opposition should be given their Supply Day next week.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If we begin the debate now, I am not prepared to tell the House at this point whether I would take the closure. It would not be the first time that it had been taken after a two-hour debate. It will be three-quarters of an hour short of an emergency debate it we begin now. I do not wish to commit myself at all. I shall see what happens in the debate.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: Further to that point of order and to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. We cannot start this important debate. The Leader of the House has had three hours to know exactly what is going on. It has gone on before his very eyes—or, if it has not, the reason is that he was not present in the Chamber. The Government have run away from a debate on sanctions. They have deliberately done so because they were afraid that they would not win it, and this despite the fact that it is an extremely important subject which affects almost every constituency.
I demand from the Lord President a Supply Day to discuss the subject. Otherwise, he must understand that all co-operation through the usual channels will be withdrawn.

Mr. Foot: I shall certainly take into account the submissions that have been made both by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and by the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, but I am entitled to have some time to consider those submissions. The first submission that we have had from the Opposition—that we should adjourn the debate and not proceed—was put by the hon. Member for Chelmsford.
The Opposition agreed to the procedures under which we were operating


today, and therefore the right hon. Lady is not entitled to make such charges at all. What we are seeking to discover is how best we can use the time and how best we can consider also the business for next week.
I am entitled, and the Government are entitled, to consider what is the business for next week before we accept representations of that character. If the Opposition want to have discussions through the usual channels about the business, of course we are prepared to do so, but we are not prepared to accept it under the threat that, if we do not accept a particular demand, all the facilities or arrangements through the usual channels are to be broken off. Let us have discussions through the usual channels. That, of course, is exactly what I was proposing.
I suggest that this debate could have been started. I feel that we could have proceeded in that way, but if the House does not want to proceed with the debate this evening, we shall have to consider what is to be done in the future. I have to take into account the representations of other Members, and I have to take into account the position of the House. I am not prepared to agree to a proposition put by the Opposition in these circumstances in this way without considering the full implications.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Before things get any worse, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether it would be possible to suspend the sitting for a brief period—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—so that the suggestion put forward by the Lord President can be followed up?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Of course, that is possible in the interests of the House, if the House generally wishes to reach a conclusion on this matter. I see no harm whatever in suspending the sitting until 8 o'clock to allow discussions to take place.

Mr. Michael English: Before you do that, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: So be it. The sitting will be suspended until 8 o'clock.

7.48 p.m.

Sitting suspended.

8.0 p.m.

On resuming—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Lord President.

Mr. Foot: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement to the House on how I think we should proceed. In the light of all that has occurred I do not believe that it will be possible for us properly to debate the subject of sanctions, as was originally intended. I do not believe that we should seek to proceed with that debate tonight, and in a moment or two I shall move the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the Lord President that there is an order to be dealt with before the Adjournment of the House can be moved.

Mr. Foot: I was not prepared to lose that order, Mr. Speaker. I was hoping that we could deal with that first before turning to the Adjournment of the House. I was explaining that I do not think that we should proceed with the subject tabled by the Opposition for debate. Tomorrow morning there will be a meeting of the usual channels to discuss future business, and I shall make a fresh Business Statement to the House at 11 o'clock tomorrow.
We have to consider the whole position of the business that is before the House, and I think that we are fully entitled to take that into account. I believe that what I have suggested is the best way for the House to deal with the whole situation. I hope that what I have proposed will be accepted.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: May I say that that very reasonable suggestion from the Lord President is completely acceptable to the Opposition? May I just add one personal caveat? Any connection between these extraordinary events today and my appointment as Shadow Leader of the House is purely coincidental.

Mr. English: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) really want to keep it going?

Mr. English: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Back Benchers have their rights, too. Indeed, they are a majority in the House. When the two usual channels meet tomorrow for their discussion I ask that they consider the reports of bipartisan Select Committees that have been unanimous in saying that this procedure should be altered.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the House is now prepared to move on to the next item of business.

AGRICULTURE

Ordered,
That the Common Agricultural Policy (Agricultural Produce) (Protection of Community Arrangements) (Amendment) Order 1978 (S.I., 1978, No. 1660), a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd November, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]

PRESTON (COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Stan Thorne: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait a moment. I ask other hon. Members to withdraw or to resume their seats.

Mr. Thorne: Every cloud—[Interruption]—has a silver lining. It seems that I now have a little more time at my disposal. If that is not so, at least there are others who may care to take part in the debate within the period that is available to us. I notice, Mr. Speaker, that at the bottom of the desk there is a tin of red paint which you might care to have removed.
On 23rd March 1977 a decision was taken by Preston council to submit a compulsory purchase order in respect of a number of properties in an area where there was considerable unfit housing. The council wished to clear the area and to make alternative arrangements for the land that would become available. The Preston (Plungington No. 2) compulsory purchase order 1977 was the subject of a public inquiry on 9th May 1978, about

six months ago. I understand that the North-West economic planning council is about 12 months behind schedule in dealing with decisions on compulsory purchase orders, and I recognise that within the Department of the Environment there is a backlog of similar requests by local authorities in areas where there is a need to demolish—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I have a brief statement to make to the House.
I have advised the Serjeant at Arms that he should put the person concerned in the recent incident in the custody of the official authorities.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What does that mean exactly? I deeply resent that interruption of our proceedings from the Gallery. When you say"in custody ", do we have the power to put the miscreant in the Tower for a while? What exactly is proposed?

Mr. Speaker: The course that I have followed is to instruct the Serjeant at Arms to hand the person over to the police for action to be taken, because a tin was thrown that could well have injured somebody in the Chamber.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: I am grateful for that reply, Mr. Speaker. However, do we not have powers to be rather more strict than perhaps the police will be? The act was self-evident, and I think that from the House we should take very stern measures against such action.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct, but it is over 100 years since the House ordered anybody to the Tower. I think that we would be well advised to leave the matter in the hands of the police authority.

Mr. Thorne: I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that we are concerned with a compulsory purchase order in respect of a number of properties broadly within an area of about two miles in the Springfield Street-Aqueduct Street area. In that area there are land, workshops and 67 properties, of which properties 58 are unfit houses. Some of the unfit houses are in a deplorable condition.
Unhappily, the application for the compulsory purchase order is made


against a background that must be considered by the Department of the Environment. The Department will not be unfamiliar with the present housing situation in Preston generally. There are about 2,500 people in the Preston area who are waiting for suitable housing accommodation. The bulk of those people need accommodation urgently. Many of them are medical cases.
The local housing authority's policy is to build 100 new houses per year. The Preston council is Conservative-controlled. The policy of building 100 houses a year is its way of dealing with the situation that I have described. Therefore, some of the families in need of housing will, clearly, never be rehoused in good accommodation. Some of their children will be married and 25 years older before they are likely to obtain reasonable housing accommodation.
One of the unfortunate aspects of this compulsory purchase order application—it is not uncommon in a number of towns and cities—is that the local authority has indicated its complete unwillingness to rehouse the occupants of some of the unfit dwellings pending the Department's decision on the compulsory purchase order. It implies that it cannot rehouse them until that decision has been made. The Minister knows better than I do that there is no rule in any housing or other Act which prevents a local authority from rehousing tenants in unfit accommodation in advance of a decision on a compulsory purchase order. Unhappily, the Minister has no direct power to intervene, but my plea is that Preston borough council should attempt to rehouse some of the worst cases involved in this compulsory purchase order area.
The Minister will recall that I was fortunate enough to have an Adjournment debate some months ago on the question of housing. In that debate we were considering the problems of multi-storey dwellings in the Avenham and other areas of Preston. The Minister offered to intervene in the sense of being willing, should the local authority make a request to him, to give advice on changing that situation.
I should be interested to hear whether the local authority has taken up that offer of advice. It seems to me, particularly when I read statements made by

the chairman of the local housing committee and observations which are made in council when housing is discussed, that advice is something from which the Preston housing authority could well benefit.
There has been—and the Minister probably has a similar problem in his constituency—a growth in my correspondence over the last 12 months containing pleas for me to intervene and assist constituents with rehousing. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will no doubt recall from your experience that it is not the job of a Member of Parliament to seek to intervene in housing allocations or lettings in his constituency. That is a job for local councillors. In regard to this compulsory purchase order, one of the local councillors, Joe Ward, has been extremely active in pressing for rehousing for some tenants.
I want to give the Minister every opportunity to reply in depth, and I do not want to go outside the terms of this Adjournment debate, but there is often —and it is true in this instance— a correlation between deprivation which arises from unfit housing and other forms of social deprivation. So it is with some of the families involved. As I said earlier, they are a mixture of elderly couples. Some of them have been owner-occupiers but, in the main, as might be expected, it is landlord-tenant accommodation with which I am concerned.
In recent years these people have found it extremely difficult to attempt to redecorate and to deal with water seeping through roofs and so on. Some of them, it must be admitted, have given up the fight. They have virtually closed the upper parts of their houses and are living almost entirely downstairs. I went into one house which did not have a stick of furniture upstairs. The walls were black because of damp and moss was evident near the windows. Therefore, one could understand why they had deserted their upper storey accommodation.
The Hewitson family in Springfield Street has for some years been seeking rehousing because of its deplorable conditions, but without success, and that applies to other families in the street.
I recall seeing three houses in that area which were to be demolished, but they are now propped up by beams of wood at


the rear. That poor families—there is such a family, with small children—have to live in those conditions is a tremendous reflection on how the Preston housing authority is prepared to ignore their plight. It is a deplorable situation. The whale area is a blot on the Preston landscape and a disgrace to any housing authority.
I should be glad to learn from the Minister that he has high expectations of giving an early decision. Certainly that would considerably help the worst cases in this area. Some indication of an early decision would help me to apply further pressure on the Preston council to make advance lettings to a number of these families. I should welcome the Minister's remarks in this regard.

8.17 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I welcome the opportunity of responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne). Apart from the occasions on which he has raised the problem of housing in his constituency in Adjournment debates, he has been a constant pressure group on my Department. I welcome his interest in and deep concern about the conditions in which some of his constituents live.
My hon. Friend, in the reasonable way in which he put his argument, put his finger on a quandary which confronts us all. The problem of compulsory purchase orders is difficult and vital. It is a question, on the one hand, of the onus on both central and local government to minimise hardship to residents in areas affected by the prospect of compulsory purchase and, on the other hand, of the rights of individual citizens, some as property owners objecting to compulsory purchase orders, to have recourse to the proper legal procedures. That can sometimes take a considerable time.
My hon. Friend will understand that I must avoid touching on the merits or demerits of the order to which he has referred. To do so would open the door to counter representations which would have to be considered, and that could mean further delay.
My hon. Friend is particularly concerned about the welfare of residents in the clearance area which include Springfield Street and Aqueduct Street—the

Preston (Plungington No. 2) compulsory purchase order 1977. In correspondence with my hon. Friend I have explained some of the reasons for the time taken in dealing with this order. I very much regret the backlog of compulsory purchase orders, because I appreciate that we are dealing not with paper statistics, and so on, but with living conditions and with people who are in desperate need of new and decent homes. Therefore, I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern.
It is a fact that in the North-West region the number of applications for CPOs has grown tremendously. From January to November 1977, 166 decisions were made for the North-West region, and in the same period this year that number increased to 308. I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that the staff have been under great pressure indeed.
This CPO was submitted to my Department for confirmation on 15th September 1977. I can well understand that those affected are wondering why it has taken so long to come to a decision. It is the local council's intention that these homes be demolished and the land redeveloped for light industry. Objections were made to the inclusion of various homes in the order and a public local inquiry had to be held. That took place on 9th May 1978. The inspector's report has been received and the order is now with the Department's North-West regional office in the queue awaiting consideration. My hon. Friend has already been advised that a decision should be issued early next year. I shall have something to say about that later.
I accept that such a long delay between public inquiry and decision is, to say the least, unsatisfactory. The delay stems from the large threefold increase in the number of orders which have been submitted by local authorities in the North-West during the last three years. Last year the regional office received 45 per cent. of all the slum clearance orders submitted in England. This has overstretched staff resources, which are already limited by manpower constraints. Nevertheless, despite there being until recently no increase in staff—as I indicated in the numbers that I gave—special efforts have secured an 85 per cent. increase in the output of decisions so far this year compared with the same period last year. I


am glad to say that steps have now been taken to allocate more staff to this work. but with new orders coming in all the time it will take some time to clear the accumulated backlog.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, Preston is an old industrial town with a high proportion of worn out and substandard terraced houses built to high densities in streets of grid-iron pattern. The local councils policy in relation to this obsolescent housing has over the past 25 years been one of phased clearance, starting with the worst areas first. One problem in achieving this aim has been the shortage of available land. The clearance of areas of older housing has been necessary, not only to eliminate unfit dwellings but to produce in-town sites which can be redeveloped for new housing accommodation.
Following the Housing Act 1974 and my Department's recommendation that wholesale clearance was no longer the only desirable method of dealing with substandard housing, the borough council decided on a thorough and detailed review of the houses contained in its present slum clearance programme. Many houses originally classed as suitable for some slum clearance at some future date have, in the context of present-day policies, been found to be capable of improvement. In Preston more than 2,500 houses have been removed from the clearance programme. The new emphasis on improvement is a major task.
I know my hon. Friend understands the new system that we have introduced, which gives us much more detailed information of the strategy of the local housing authority. The housing investment programme submitted under that new policy, covering the period from April 1979 to March 1983, envisages the improvement of 3,000 substandard houses during that period. In the case of council-owned property, this is to be achieved by direct action by the borough council and local housing associations, and in the private sector by making available improvement grants and local authority loans, supplemented by mortgages under the building societies support scheme.
The 3,000 dwellings represented half the present substandard stock, having allowed for the clearance of about 1,000 homes which cannot be saved. I wish the

borough council well in its efforts. There are, of course, still areas of older housing stock where clearance will be the only satisfactory form of action. Urban renewal is a gradual process—the improvement of some houses, the selective clearance and replacement of those beyond the pale. The borough council's submitted housing strategy recognises the need for an increase in the overall dwelling stock to accommodate demand from residents of clearance areas, as well as other needs such as overcrowding, the housing waiting list, and the anticipated increase in population.
The council's building programme, supplemented by housing association activity, is intended to cope with this demand. Altogether, 850 council houses are expected to be completed in the next five years, and housing associations are expected to add a further 900 dwellings. Additionally, the Central Lancashire new town development corporation will be building to meet local needs as well as the needs of the incoming population.
I turn to action in the Plungington area. The local council's main priority for urban renewal is the Plungington area, where it is fortunate in having the assistance of the Central Lancashire new town development corporation. The borough is working in partnership with the development corporation urban renewal team. A study has commenced of the whole area, involving some 2,500 properties, with a view to assessing the correct approach. This partnership is to be applauded. The development corporation's help includes making staff available, financial assistance towards improvements and the provision of new dwellings on cleared sites in and around improvement areas.
Action in the Plungington area is to consist largely of improvement. One general improvement area has already been declared, and the borough council hopes to declare further areas—covering as many as 1,000 dwellings—in the near future.
I can understand my hon. Friend's concern for the plight of residents occupying houses which the council wishes to clear. The hardship of those living in the CPO area is well understood by me. The responsibility for alleviating this rests with the borough council. Local authorities have been advised in circulars that they should do everything possible to assist


residents during what is often a disturbing change in their pattern of living. They should encourage owners to carry out essential repairs or modest improvements needed to make conditions more tolerable. In the case of tenanted properties, there is no reason why the local authority should not acquire the properties and undertake the work themselves.
It is open to owner-occupiers to serve a blight notice requiring the local authority to acquire their property in advance of the decision on an order. But local authorities should themselves do everything in their power to counteract the effects of blight, although blight always presents considerable difficulties for everybody concerned. They should intensify the provision of housekeeping services such as street cleaning, refuse collection, adequate rodent control and general maintenance of the surroundings.
I have not had any representations from councils or, indeed, from residents about living conditions in the area. If the local authority requests that priority be given to this order because there is evidence that people are suffering such severe hardship, I shall be prepared to consider taking it out of turn so that a decision on the order can be brought forward.
With that in mind I shall read carefully what my hon. Friend has said tonight. If necessary I shall get in touch with him, and certainly I shall be in contact again with my officers in the regional office. I have no doubt that the Preston borough council will take note of what my hon. Friend has said and, indeed. of my reply to this debate.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I do not think that the House should be allowed to adjourn this evening until it has had the opportunity, which the Opposition have denied it, of debating the subject of sanctions, which have—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. Is the hon. Member proposing to address the House on the subject which is before it at present?

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I am addressing the House on the motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member mean the motion which has been put forward by the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) or another motion? Is the hon. Member raising another subject?

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Yes, I am raising the subject of sanctions, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must refer the hon. Gentleman to page 285 of"Erskine May ", where it is clearly set out that the Chair has on many occasions
deprecated the introduction of such subjects in cases where due notice has not been given to the Minister concerned ".
That happened in Sessions 1963–64 and 1970–71, amongst others.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my understanding was that what we were debating was a motion to adjourn the proceedings for today, and that on a motion for the Adjournment it was possible to raise any subject. Therefore, it is permissible now, particularly as we still have one and a half hours of the normal allotted time that is given to the House for the subject of debate today, to raise the subject of sanctions, as in fact it was earlier intended to be raised by the Leader of the Opposition on the motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. In what I have already said, I have indicated that it is in order, but it is an abuse of the practice of the House on occasions such as this to address the House when a Minister has not been advised and is not present.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: There is a Minister present, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will feel inclined to reply to the debate is, of course, a matter for him. I briefly mentioned to him that I would be raising the subject, but I accept that I did not give him what would normally be termed a proper or reasonable notice or advice, nor do I expect that he would reply to the debate. Nevertheless, I am sure that he will honour us with his presence during the debate, so that particular aspect of the regulations—if one can call them such —is satisfied.
Perhaps I may now continue, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that we have


before the House an important subject—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I have already explained to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) that a can of paint has been thrown from the Public Gallery. The paint has considerably damaged the carpet on the Floor of the Chamber, the upholstery and various other items of the furnishings. In order to avoid the damage being permanent, it is necessary to have the carpet cleaned whilst the paint is still wet. Therefore, I propose to suspend the sitting until 9.45 p.m. to enable the repairs to be carried out.

8.33 p.m.

Sitting suspended.

9.45 p.m.

On resuming—

PAY POLICY

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: It is instructive that there are far more Members on the Government Benches for this important debate on sanctions than there are on the Opposition Benches. Tonight we have witnessed the Tory Opposition in high dudgeon, in fact, in hysteria about this policy, yet not one hon. Member from the Conservative Party is here to continue the debate as we wanted to earlier and as we intend to do now.
The Tories ran away from their own debate just as they ran away from a substantive motion. This is an extremely important issue for every constituency in the country and, indeed, for every worker in the country and it needs to be debated fully and openly in the House.
I have been a critic of the sanctions policy for a long time. In fact, it was I who first inveigled the Government into admitting the existence of the so-called black list. I have never accepted sanctions as an appropriate part of the Government's economic strategy and I believe that Parliament would never have given the Government discretionary powers under the Industry Act or the Export Credit Guarantee provisions had it known how they would be used.

Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a fact that not only is

there no Member from the Conservative Opposition present; there is no one from the minority Opposition parties, either, to discuss this important issue?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. It is not for me to comment on who is present. This is an additional Adjournment debate.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is correct. Given the amount of hysteria that has been generated here tonight I do not think that the Opposition are taking this matter seriously enough. Not one of them has been prepared to wait until the comparatively early hour of 9.45 p.m. in the hope of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I do not believe that Parliament would have given discretionary powers to the Government had it known that they were likely to be used in a way that was unintended and unexpected. Had it known that the Government would use the powers in this arbitrary and unjust fashion, discriminating not against the companies but against the workers of those companies in reality, it would never have approved them.
It is strange that although the Government have made a great deal of their industrial strategy to create and protect jobs and their economic strategy to bring down inflation, and have also introduced a whole variety of temporary employment measures to assist and sustain employment in areas such as Merseyside. they should use discretionary powers in an arbitrary and unjust manner to jeopardise the jobs already in existence.
It is clearly possible that it temporary employment subsidy is withdrawn from a firm, if a firm is refused export credit guarantees or a variety of Government assistance under the Industry Act, it will have a serious impact on employment within that company. That would have been the case with Otis Elevator Company in Kirkby in my constituency, which last year settled above the 10 per cent. pay guideline—at 10ç5 per cent.—at the same time applying for temporary employment subsidy for 250 workmen. Had the Government carried out their threat to withhold temporary employment subsidy from Otis Elevator it would have led to the loss of 200 jobs in an area of excessively high unemployment. We have


enough serious unemployment as it is. especially in Merseyside and Kirkby.
Only today I heard that Kirkby's workers' co-operative is likely to be wound up, with the loss not of 260 jobs but of all 700 jobs, because the prospective private enterprise company which might have taken it over backed out of the operation. We cannot afford to lose those jobs. We cannot afford to lose the many hundreds and thousands of jobs that we have lost in the past few months in Kirkby and Merseyside, and then have a further threat to other jobs in the region as the result of the application of the Government's discretionary sanctions.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the policy of sanctions against certain firms being indefensible, there are only a limited number of firms against which they can be applied? They cannot be applied against British Oxygen, because doing so would bring the whole of British industry to a standstill. Does my hon. Friend also agree that there are hundreds of provincial NUJ members on very low rates of pay who are on strike, and it would be indefensible if the Government attempted to use sanctions against newspapers?

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It would be totally indefensible and immoral if the Government were to use sanctions against farm workers. Everyone accepts that farm workers are at poverty level and on a minimum wage. They are asking for an increase well beyond the 5 per cent. If they get that increase, will the Government take discretionary action against farmers? If they do, the farmers, being subsidised, will no longer be able to continue in production. That would be indefensible.
My hon. Friend takes me on to one of the most unjust elements of the sanctions policy. It hits the weak; it hits those in the public sector, who will be discriminated against more effectively and thoroughly than those in the private sector. The only policy that the Government have for upholding their non-statutory pay policy—it is not an incomes policy—is the imposition of sanctions. Even in the private sector, in the main, with the exception of firms like Ford,

sanctions can be applied only to the weak private sector companies, the companies which need Government assistance. whether through loans and subsidies under the Industry Act or through temporary employment subsidy, in order to maintain employment.
It is the weaker companies and the weaker workers in the companies within the private sector who are susceptible to the imposition of Government sanctions. Workers in companies which are strong, viable and profitable, and which do not rely upon Government orders, contracts or assistance, escape unscathed. That, clearly, is both unfair and intolerable. There can be no defence for a policy which in practice discriminates against the weak and allows the strong to get away with it. It is an efficient punishment not of the companies but of the workers in those companies.

Mr. Stanley Bidwell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposed sanctions against Ford are farcical, because Ford has a lot of leeway to make up in fulfilling its orders? How far can the sanctions be effective? It is local authorities which normally order motor vehicles.
The Government's decision may be a blessing in disguise for Ford and may enable the company to fulfil its obligations in the international market. We have here all the ramifications of a multinational company's operations. The Granada, Ford's biggest and most successful car, is produced in Germany, with much Turkish labour; the Cortina is produced in Belgium; and the Ford small cars are produced in Dagenham and are in great demand in this country. Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole idea of threatening sanctions takes on a farcical character?

Mr. Ron Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like an assurance that the closed circuit television screens and the alarm systems in the House are working properly. I am disturbed that there are no Tories in the Chamber.

Mr. Reginald Eyre: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by saying that there are no Tories here?

Mr. Thomas: It may be that the television screens or the alarm bells are not working and that that is why the Tories have decided not to turn up for this very important debate on sanctions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The only matter that concerns me is when our clock reaches half-past Ten.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) is right. There is a farcical facet to the whole concept of sanctions and to the way in which they have been imposed. It is possible that sanctions imposed on a company could lead to discrimination against the workers and might result in redundancies. That might have no relation to the fact that the workers in that company were extremely efficient, productive and hard working.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: No. I must get on. Many of my hon. Friends who have been here throughout the day wish to speak. The hon. Gentleman has only just walked in.
There is another aspect to Government policy. Until relatively recently it was shrouded in the mists of secrecy. We did not know what companies were being subjected to sanctions. I learnt only from newspapers that a company called High-Speed Turnings, in Kirkby, was being subjected to sanctions. We do not know to what sanctions these firms were or are being subjected, or for what reasons, or for what length of time. We also do not know what impact those sanctions were having on the companies concerned.
All my hon. Friends in the Chamber who represent constituencies in which there is a great direct industrial interest want and need to know what impact the Government's policy is having on our constituents and the employment prospects in our constituencies.

Mr. Stanbrook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not want to spend the half hour that remains of our valuable time dealing with points of order and refusals to give way. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) knows that he must

resume his seat if another hon. Member does not give way.

Mr. Stanbrook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the custom of the House for hon. Members to give way to interventions, whether from one side of the House or the other?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is related directly to the temperament of the individual addressing the House and the time of day at which he is addressing it.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I must make clear to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) that I am not in the mood to give way to interventions from Conservative Members. We can do without flippant interventions. This is a serious subject.
I should make it clear that, although I am highly critical of the Government's use of sanctions in this context, I am not opposed to the use of sanctions as a matter of general policy. I should like to see the greater use of sanctions for more positive and constructive things. I should like to see sanctions imposed against companies that do not employ their proper quota of disabled workers. There are many such cases, particularly in Government Departments.
The same applies to those companies which practise some form, open or subtle, of racial or sexual discrimination, or involve themselves in some way in exploiting their workers, either through low pay or inadequate working conditions.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Evans.]

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The sanctions policy is the use of other means of implementing the Government's so-called incomes policy. We do not have an incomes policy. What we have is a pay policy which is unfair, unjust, and riddled with anomalies—anomalies which mean that it is always the same people who are subjected to pay restraint and the imposition of sanctions of one kind or another. Equally, it is always the same people, whether stockbrokers, lawyers, estate agents or the self-employed, who escape


entirely from the imposition of the pay policy. That is true now, it was true last year and the year before, and it has been true under every Administration's implementation of so-called pay restraint policies since 1947. It is always my constituents and those of my hon. Friend who are asked to put their noses to the grindstone and make sacrifices.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that most professional people often charge fees that are percentages of prices, which means that they have a direct interest in increasing inflation? Estate agency is one example, because whenever house prices rise, estate agents increase their commission.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I agree. Not only do they increase their commission in that way, not only are such people enabled to determine and announce their own pay increases; they are also—this happens throughout management in industry, commerce and the service industries—able to escape the implications and consequences of any pay policy by giving themselves all kinds of non-monetary perks. It is clearly indefensible that a pay policy riddled with such anomalies and injustices —a pay policy such as that which we now have—should be implemented by the Government.
I am very much in favour of an incomes policy, but it must be a Socialist incomes policy—one that takes account of incomes and wealth, and in which the resources of society are distributed fairly and equitably according to rational criteria. We do not have such a policy. Without the implementation of such a policy, I cannot in any circumstances give my support to other policies which, in reality, amount to no more than a restraint upon the income of the working class.

Mr. George Rodgers: Does my hon. Friend agree that an incomes policy would, perhaps, be a little more tolerable if it also embraced profits and prices and contained an element of control over investment?

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: That is precisely the point that I was making. I am deeply in favour of an incomes policy, so long as it takes account of all forms of income, earned and unearned, and other wealth. As a prerequisite for the implementation

of that policy we must have a Socialist society that is seen to be fair and just as between all sections of the community. That is clearly and demonstrably not the case at the moment, and it has not been the case in the past.
It is totally unreasonable continually to ask the same people to be making the same sacrifices when they see the obscene wealth displayed in other parts of the country by certain individuals and while we have such enormous disparities of income and wealth in our society. While such conditions exist there cannot be any justification for, or defence of, any kind of pay restraint.

Mr. Eyre: rose—

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I hope that the importance of this debate has been, first, to show that we on the Labour Benches have lived up to our responsibilities to our constituents and have aired this subject in the absence of the official Opposition and all of their cohorts in the minority parties. We on these Benches, at least, want this issue out in the open and debated. We are making our position clear to the Government. We do not support their pay policy. We do not support the imposition of penal sanctions upon workers to effect that policy.
I hope that the Government will take note of the debate that we on the Government Benches have conducted tonight and when they come back next week will have had second thoughts, and will have forgotten all about the imposition of penal sanctions.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: All those terrible things that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) has just mentioned were committed by a Labour Government—a Government whom the. hon. Gentleman has hitherto supported. One hopes that he will have the courage of his convictions and henceforth will vote against his Government because, clearly, they are guilty of doing something which is not worthy of the support of anyone who sincerely believes in the objectives of the Labour Government as I understand them. The Government's policies are contrary to the will of the Labour movement as a whole. It amazes us to find the Government pursuing policies that are at variance with


the views of a large proportion of their movement.
This is the time when one would expect members of the Labour Party, and especially members of the Parliamentary Labour Party, to stand up and make their voices heard at every possible opportunity to vote against the policies of their Government.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Gentleman says that he and his party are opposed to sanctions. Does he remember the most horrific and terrible sanctions ever imposed? It was called the Industrial Relations Act, under which the entire trade union movement was subjected to the power of the courts, with a new chairman specially put there to penalise the unions. Was not that the most terrible sanction of all? How can the hon. Gentleman pretend to be against sanctions when he applauded that monstrous sanction that his party imposed?

Mr. Stanbrook: I do not think that that was the most terrible sanction of all, because if there is one great evil against which we in this country have to fight and contend with all the time it is irresponsible trade unionism. Say what one may about the Industrial Relations Act, it was an attempt to cure that evil. That evil was so well recognised that even the Labour Government of 1966 to 1970 attempted to cure it in their own way by producing their White Paper"In Place of Strife ".
It so happens that the ideas that formed the basis of that document received support in the country as a whole but were opposed by the trade union movement, and especially by the irresponsible section of it. Unfortunately for the country, the Labour Government were unsuccessful in their attempt to cure that evil, and when the Conservative Government tried to cure it by their methods they, too, were unsuccessful.

Mr. Eyre: I remind my hon. Friend that during that period of the Labour Government between 1966 and 1970, when proposals were brought forward by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) to deal with the trade unions, they included penalties such as sending trade unionists to prison. The penalties then

proposed were far more severe than any that were introduced by the Conservative Government.

Mr. Stanbrook: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. That is true. In some ways the proposals of the Labour Government were more draconian than those of the Conservative Government, so it cannot be said that this evil of irresponsible trade unions is not well recognised, even by members of the hon. Gentleman's own party. One of the greatest tragedies was that the Conservative Government's attempt to deal with the problem did not receive the support that it should have done from the then Labour Opposition.

Mr. George Rodgers: What will a Conservative Government do if ever they are elected to office? Will they introduce the kind of legislation of which the hon. Member speaks so proudly?

Mr. Stanbrook: I cannot speak for the actions of my Front Bench should it be in a position to make immediate proposals. I say only that the evil remains and must be dealt with. I hope that a future Conservative Government will deal with it, though perhaps not in the same way as the Conservative Government of 1970 to 1974. Perhaps they will adopt a more acceptable approach, with more consultation, and perhaps, best of all, based upon the proposals laid before Parliament by the Labour Government of 1966 to 1970.
In some ways there was a great deal to be said for those proposals. It was a great shame that the Conservative Government did not take them up and introduce them, putting them through the House with the commendation of the right hon. Member for Blackburn and the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) who were, after all, the godparents of those proposals.
They were defeated by a section of the Labour Party, and now they are passing from the scene. One hopes, however, that the Labour Party will see reason as time passes and will not be taken over by its Left wing, and that it will never have control of the government of this country again. Until the country recognises this evil with acceptable and effective proposals which will deal with the monster of irresponsible trade unionism, it will never solve any of its problems.
I revert, however, to the main subject of the debate, which concerns the sanctions policy of the Government against firms which do not comply with the Government's incomes policy. This is perhaps a subject of tremendous fundamental importance. The power granted to Ministers to act within the discretion allowed to them by Parliament is conferred by statute. Every statute giving a Minister power of this kind is devoted to a particular purpose. When a Minister exercises his discretion outside the objectives of the relevant statute, I believe that he is acting unlawfully.
It cannot be said, can it, in this country which, thank God, is still free, that a Minister is entitled to act beyond the purposes, spirit and intention of Acts which give him the power to act within his discretion? It must be wrong, if an Act gives him power to grant or to withhold assistance for the purposes of export credits or industrial training, for him to act out of motives dissimilar to those contained in the legislation or outside the comprehension of Parliament when it enacted that legislation.

Mr. Bidwell: If the trade union movement was the irresponsible creature that the hon. Member has sought to depict in his historic narrative, which is entirely faulty, there would be justification for the Government's policies. However, the hon. Member's narrative is totally wrong. The element of trade unionism which can be described as irresponsible is minuscule in proportion to the overall size of the movement in which a great number of workers, especially in skilled occupations, engage in responsible negotiations. I speak as a sponsored member of the Transport and General Workers Union which is involved in the current difficulties over Ford.
The trade unionists there engaged in responsible negotiations against a background of the stupendous profits made by that company. That is why those men are getting up tight against the Government's attitude which does not accord with the realities of industrial life. If the hon. Member's portrayal of wild and wanton trade unionists were correct, there might be some need for the Government's actions. However, as the hon. Member is wrong, the Government's action is also wrong.

Mr. Stanbrook: The hon. Gentleman has missed the fact that I have passed from the topic of his remarks to the subject of this debate, namely, sanctions. The Labour Government are caught in a trap of their own making. They were faced by a monster in the form of irresponsible trade unionism. In attempting to appease that monster, they gave it the industrial and political power that it wanted. That Government put through this House legislation which would not have been enacted if that Government had represented the people and had fairly expressed the wishes of the people in regard to trade unions.
The Labour Government have since created a situation in which the trade unions have a stranglehold over our economy. The result is that, whereas originally the trade unions were prepared to co-operate in return for these concessions, now they are not. Perhaps there was a vestige of the original trade union purpose of benefiting their members, but the trade union movement seems now to realise that an incomes policy such as that devised by the Labour Government is good neither for the country nor for trade unionists.
The trade unions not only have a political and economic stranglehold on the country; they determine the life of the Labour Government. The sooner the execution takes place, the better. The whole nation is awaiting the opportunity to get rid of the Labour Government who have so dishonoured their early promises.
I wish now to deal with the economic sanctions that the Labour Government seek to impose. I believe that the action that they have taken is unlawful. Their policy is riddled with inconsistencies. We are all waiting for the sanctions to be imposed on the TUC for its breaches of incomes policy. If the Government are determined to impose sanctions on Ford, they must in all justice impose similar sanctions on the TUC. The TUC receives at least £1 million from the Government in respect of training. Why should that figure not be cut off completely? It is a discretionary power in the hands of the Minister, who can decide whether or not to grant that money. Surely it is well established that action against the TUC should follow action taken against any individual company.
This is a fundamental problem. Magna Carta, 763 years ago, first established that no man should be punished except for a breach of the law. If we apply that principle to current circumstances, we wonder what kind of breach of the law Ford has committed. There is no statute that says that Ford may not pay more than 5 per cent. Indeed, if the Labour Government were more honest they would have enacted such a statute, but they have not had the courage to do so. At least the Government headed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) displayed that courage.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that just over 100 years ago the men of Dorset, the Tolpuddle martyrs, when attempting to organise trade unions in order to deal with the vicious attacks on them by their employers, were condemned and sent to penal colonies? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is thinking of returning to that stage in our history. He displayed in his speech a violent hostility to the trade union movement. Perhaps he will try to define the difference between irresponsible and responsible trade unionists.
It appears that what the Conservative Party wants is a trade union movement that is weak and ineffective. It would call that a responsible trade union movement. The British trade union movement was built up out of sheer necessity and the conditions of the time in which it emerged, but the attitudes of those times have been inherited by the Conservative Party in our politics today. When he talks about the trade union movement, the hon. Gentleman should remember that in the recent past that movement has acted in a most responsible manner in assisting this country out of its economic difficulties. The trade unionists feel, and I feel with them, that it is about time they began to get some of the rewards for the sacrifices which they have made in the past.
The hon. Gentleman has referred to sanctions. I wish to make clear that there is a sharp distinction between Labour Members' approach to sanctions and the approach of the Conservative Opposition. I cannot for a moment understand how a party that could contrive the Industrial Relations Act could say with any degree

of honesty that it was opposed to sanctions, yet that is what we hear from it.
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what sort of policies would be introduced by a Conservative Government, if there should ever be one, to deal with the so-called irresponsible trade union movement? The House might learn something from this debate if he told us exactly what the position would be if—God forbid—the Opposition were ever to form the Government of the day.

Mr. Stanbrook: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that most helpful intervention, but it is he who is living in the past. All those who talk in terms of the trade union movement as he does are still living in the past—he referred to the Tolpuddle martyrs—because it was the Conservative Party that established the trade unions on a legal footing and probably gave them more assistance in their formative stages than did any other party in this country.
It is the Conservative Party that accepts that an institution whose membership is composed of individual workers is entitled to operate within the law in the interests of those members, and that institution is, indeed, given a special privileged position in our law. That is the position, and it certainly was the position up to the second world war.
All those victories of the past having been won, one would have expected trade unions to continue in that function. Unfortunately, for historical reasons, they own the Labour Party. They created it, and they still pay for it. The result is that they think that they can call its tune. A further result has been that this Government, in their desire to preserve such power as they had, were prepared to condone tyranny and, indeed, to appease it by granting political power.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Stanbrook: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Eyre: Before my hon. Friend continues to reply in such good terms to the intervention of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), may I underline the significance of the demonstration of rebellion on the Government Back Benches which we witnessed this


evening, when more than 30 hon. Members assembled to support the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), who initiated this Adjournment debate?
In view of the extreme terms of criticism which have been applied to Government policy tonight, is it not clear that the hon. Members who assembled this evening could not possibly support the Government on future occasions in any matter relating to sanctions or incomes policy? I ask my hon. Friend to recognise the great political significance of the protest and demonstration which have taken place in the Chamber tonight.

Mr. Stanbrook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. We have a rather curious situation here, in which a large section of the Labour Party, so it appears, is opposed to the current policies of the Government whom it is supporting in power. I noted that some hon. Members now present voted against the defence Estimates this afternoon, which also seems rather significant. I have always thought that defence in this country was almost sacrosanct in political terms, it being recognised that the first duty of any nation is to defend itself adequately. It is clear that in the priorities adopted by some hon. Members the defence of our country comes a long way down the scale.
It is obvious that the Opposition are determined to maintain the defence of the realm against its enemies internally and externally, but that Government Members do not regard defence as a high priority on public expenditure. On the contrary, they are willing to support a tyranny that has been created, fostered and strengthened in the country by their party. One therefore wonders whose interests such hon. Members have at heart, since they support such tyrannies and are, at the same time, willing to vote against the defence of our country.
If there were a touchstone it would be that of defence Estimates. Government Members either believe that we should have adequate men and that they should have adequate arms and equipment—

Mr. Tom Litterick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member is not referring to the subject that is before the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The motion is for the Adjournment of the House. Nothing else is under consideration. 1 remind the hon. Member that the Minister has sat patiently throughout the whole of this thrilling debate and is anxious to have a few minutes in which he can reply. I hope that the hon. Member will bear that in mind.

Mr. Stanbrook: It had crossed my mind that the Minister, with whom personally I have no quarrel, was going to make his contribution, like so many of his hon. Friends, by an intervention to my speech. He appears not to wish to do that. I wish to advance the constitutional progress of the House so I shall sit down if the Minister wishes to intervene.

10.28 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): I have listened with interest to the arguments. I could not understand whether hon. Members realised that the monster that they are facing is not the monster of trade unionism, as envisaged by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), or even the small monster of Toryism—or the nil monster of Toryism —that we have seen from the Opposition Front Bench. Crucial to what is happening now and to the prospects for the future is the rate of inflation. Nobody disputes that. The TUC does not dispute it.
Our success in getting the inflation rate down from 27 per cent. in 1975 to 8 per cent. today is there for all to see. We have come through the worst recession experienced in the West in recent times. Output is rising. Investment has risen and is still rising. We can keep output growing. Living standards rose by 7 per cent. in the second quarter of the year and, certainly, it improved further in the third quarter. Unemployment has fallen by 100,000 in the year.
But we cannot be complacent. Our unit wages costs in manufacturing have been rising faster than in any other major industrial country. If that continues we shall see inflation roar away again. Progressively we shall lose out to foreign competition. Inflation exports jobs and depresses home demand overall. Faced with inflation people save more but think twice about investing in industry.
The present policy is designed to keep inflation within single figures, and if possible to reduce it further. Our policy is not a negative policy or restraint. Under our policy there is scope for genuine self-financing productivity beyond the 5 per cent. limit. We shall achieve sustained improvement in real incomes, as opposed to confetti money, only by sustained improvement in productivity deals.
There is scope, particularly in large bargaining groups, to deal with differentials. Other pay anomalies can be sorted out on the"kitty"principle. There are special provisions to allow higher rises for the lower-paid. The opinion polls have

shown that the majority of voters are solidly behind our approach to incomes policy.
It is our duty to do what we can to persuade employers in the public and private sectors to reach settlements that are within the guidelines. We shall take such action which is within our legal discretion—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.